I’m not thrilled about this, but hoping for the best!

[MarshallGoldberg]

Actually we are subsiding a little less than we were in the Big East (and that's not inflation adjusted) according to the Snyder reports.

Right. It is frustrating we are still a top ten or so P5 team in terms of the percentage of athletic department budget that we subsidize, even if the total dollar amount of the subsidy is slightly down. The ACC added a lot of revenue. We know our giving is low and that's an ongoing problem. But also athletic departments are great at building up their infastructure to spend every penny they bring in, and then ask for tuition/fee money too.

I have a feeling if we got another increase in conference/bowl money, it'd be spent on adding another sport or paying more to assistant football coaches and the subsidizes would still be about as big as they are now. Do you think I'm wrong on that?

 

[Harve74]

Actually we are subsiding a little less than we were in the Big East (and that's not inflation adjusted) according to the Snyder reports.

The figures I've seen were around $10 MM then and $13 MM this past year. Given inflation, that's possibly a wash but the BE TV contract was something like $6-8 MM and the ACC deal is something like $33 MM. Plus whatever we get from the College Football Playoff pool, which can vary wildly but looks like at least $4MM this year.

Even if the subsidy was a bit higher in the BE days, and the BE TV money was double what I've listed, I really have a hard time understanding just how the Athletic Department can be blowing thru 20 to 30 million dollars MORE than just 5 years ago and STILL need an 8-figure subsidy.

I've seen published numbers that say our cost per athlete is 50 to 100% HIGHER than average in P-5. I have no idea if that is correct or not.

Certainly, "dead" money, paying off former coaches and AD's is a drain. And, the lack of donations is well-known.

I'd welcome anyone with links to better, verifiable numbers. My memory could be way off. Souf used to post links to published, Federally-reported numbers but they were always a few years out of date.

 

[CrazyPaco]

The figures I've seen were around $10 MM then and $13 MM this past year. Given inflation, that's possibly a wash but the BE TV contract was something like $6-8 MM and the ACC deal is something like $33 MM. Plus whatever we get from the College Football Playoff pool, which can vary wildly but looks like at least $4MM this year.

Even if the subsidy was a bit higher in the BE days, and the BE TV money was double what I've listed, I really have a hard time understanding just how the Athletic Department can be blowing thru 20 to 30 million dollars MORE than just 5 years ago and STILL need an 8-figure subsidy.

I've seen published numbers that say our cost per athlete is 50 to 100% HIGHER than average in P-5. I have no idea if that is correct or not.

Certainly, "dead" money, paying off former coaches and AD's is a drain. And, the lack of donations is well-known.

I'd welcome anyone with links to better, verifiable numbers. My memory could be way off. Souf used to post links to published, Federally-reported numbers but they were always a few years out of date.

Google Synder Report, you can find the budget numbers in those (search for athletics).

The Federal Reports aren't accurate to the actual revenues and expenses. They're all constructed to make it look like every athletic department in the nation breaks even. And there is no standardized reporting.

Pitt's AD still need a subsidy because expenses are growing faster than revenues. All Power 5 schools are spending more.

It makes perfect sense that Pitt's per athlete costs are higher. We have the second highest public tuition in the country.

 

[CrazyPaco]

Right. It is frustrating we are still a top ten or so P5 team in terms of the percentage of athletic department budget that we subsidize, even if the total dollar amount of the subsidy is slightly down. The ACC added a lot of revenue. We know our giving is low and that's an ongoing problem. But also athletic departments are great at building up their infastructure to spend every penny they bring in, and then ask for tuition/fee money too.

I have a feeling if we got another increase in conference/bowl money, it'd be spent on adding another sport or paying more to assistant football coaches and the subsidizes would still be about as big as they are now. Do you think I'm wrong on that?

Our athletic budget, including everything, is at the low end of peer P5 institutions, even though our university subsidy of athletics is at the high end. There is no end to the number of things that Pitt could spend money on to keep pace with peer athletic institutions that its fans and boosters expect Pitt to compete against. Unfortunately, Pitt doesn't and can't compete in a vacuum, and with its paltry gate receipts and donation levels, it will always be playing catch up.

 

[chethejet]

Many programs beyond the top 15 in revenue are not rolling in profits. Big Ten is receiving some serious coin per school except MD and Rutgers that have a phased in distribution. Big Ten also takes 30%of the game revenue of Big Ten games and has a redistribution model like revenue sharing in baseball.

But the donor money is what can make a significant difference. LSU gets some 45 million from donors to the athletic dept. and can use that to pay salaries for Canada as OC. ACC will catch up somewhat with the ACC network but that is three years away from distribution. Big Ten and SEC will always have advantages as to payouts but ACC does well relative to programs and budgets in the conference.

 

[Harve74]

Many programs beyond the top 15 in revenue are not rolling in profits. Big Ten is receiving some serious coin per school except MD and Rutgers that have a phased in distribution. Big Ten also takes 30%of the game revenue of Big Ten games and has a redistribution model like revenue sharing in baseball.

But the donor money is what can make a significant difference. LSU gets some 45 million from donors to the athletic dept. and can use that to pay salaries for Canada as OC. ACC will catch up somewhat with the ACC network but that is three years away from distribution. Big Ten and SEC will always have advantages as to payouts but ACC does well relative to programs and budgets in the conference.

With ESPN in cut-back mode and more layoffs coming after year's end, I still have little confidence the ACC Network will ever launch.

 

[Slick Manager of Champs]

Google Synder Report, you can find the budget numbers in those (search for athletics).

The Federal Reports aren't accurate to the actual revenues and expenses. They're all constructed to make it look like every athletic department in the nation breaks even. And there is no standardized reporting.

Pitt's AD still need a subsidy because expenses are growing faster than revenues. All Power 5 schools are spending more.

It makes perfect sense that Pitt's per athlete costs are higher. We have the second highest public tuition in the country.

Thanks to America's largest full time state legislature! The one and only thing we can commiserate with PSU on!

 

[CrazyPaco]

With ESPN in cut-back mode and more layoffs coming after year's end, I still have little confidence the ACC Network will ever launch.

It’s 100% done deal to launch. Already signed up to be carried in New York. The only question is how much $ will be generated.

 

[Harve74]

It’s 100% done deal to launch. Already signed up to be carried in New York. The only question is how much $ will be generated.

A lot of the guys they fired /laid off had contracts too. The market is changing constantly. Who knows who will own ESPN next year? Nothing in media is 100% certain.

If anything IS certain, it is that Pitt will find some way to run through whatever revenue they get and still end up underfunded compared to our peers.

 

[CrazyPaco]

A lot of the guys they fired /laid off had contracts too. The market is changing constantly. Who knows who will own ESPN next year? Nothing in media is 100% certain.

If anything IS certain, it is that Pitt will find some way to run through whatever revenue they get and still end up underfunded compared to our peers.

100%