ADVERTISEMENT

In the future, can we stop calling them "student" athletes?

Yes but without football they would have gotten a fraction of what they get now and less than that without men's basketball. Women's volleyball like all the other non revenue generating sports are part of the package but are worth maybe a couple of pennies on the dollar.
So they are worth something. How does that factor into your net loss calculation (which you still haven't provided)?
 
So they are worth something. How does that factor into your net loss calculation (which you still haven't provided)?
Pitt's reporting of revenue and athletic expenses makes it extremely difficult to determine how far any program is in the red because they show every program breaking even. However, you can get some idea by looking at other schools; Florida State reports losing $1 million, PSU reports losing $1.5 million, and Texas reports losing $1.4 million on women's volleyball.
 
Pitt's reporting of revenue and athletic expenses makes it extremely difficult to determine how far any program is in the red because they show every program breaking even. However, you can get some idea by looking at other schools; Florida State reports losing $1 million, PSU reports losing $1.5 million, and Texas reports losing $1.4 million on women's volleyball.
WVB has $691k in operating expenses
Revenue is only disclosed for football and revenue -
The revenue is inclusive for all other sports (not broken down by team)

To put it in perspective :
Football $54.7mil
Basketball just under $20mil

All other sports combined $24.5m
 
So they are worth something. How does that factor into your net loss calculation (which you still haven't provided)?

Dude, please stop it. You are embarrassing yourself. You are seriously trying to argue the technicality that volleyball generates revenue because they sell tickets. No crap. Middle School Volleyball also generates revenue then because it costs $1 to get in. Should MS volleyball players be paid since they are generating revenue? Of course not, because the expenses of paying the volleyball coach, bussing the kids to away games, and buying uniforms far exceeds ticket revenue. How do you not understand that volleyball expenses far exceed revenue? The net result is the team loses money.

And now you want to talk about TV revenue? Volleyball is worth $0 for the ESPN ACC contract. The ACC has literally said its 80% football/20% men's basketball. If the ACC was able to carve out their women's volleyball and sell it as a separate package, what do you think they could seriously get for that? $1 million per year for the entire league? And that seems AWFULLY generous. That would be $55,000 per school.
 
That's $7.3 million per year per school and that's without football. When you dont have that massive football expense, that's pretty good.

The ACC has said 80% of the value of its TV contract comes from football. 20% comes from basketball. That 20% gets split 18 ways to incorporate Notre Dame.
The last sentence pisses me off. ND should be forced to join a conference or be excluded from the CFP.
 
You'd see this more in basketball. The only position in football where you could get rich in college and not make the NFL is at QB. So lets say old Pat White from WVU decides he isnt going to have much of a future in the NFL but can make $2 million or $3 million in college football. He sues the NCAA saying as long as he remains a college student...even until he's 30 or 35, they arent legally allowed to deny him the right to earn a living based on an arbitrary 4-5 eligibility year rule. In basketball, lets go back to DeJuan Blair or Julius Page or Blake Hinson. Pitt has had many players who could have made far more in college. That old Howland/Dixon team of BK & Co. What if they decided to stay at Pitt until they are 30? How could they lose that lawsuit?
Kind of incredible that the lawsuits used to be about trying to leave early and now, if this were to happen , athletes would be suing to stay. In each case, it’s about being compensated. Interesting times.
 
WVB has $691k in operating expenses
Revenue is only disclosed for football and revenue -
The revenue is inclusive for all other sports (not broken down by team)

To put it in perspective :
Football $54.7mil
Basketball just under $20mil

All other sports combined $24.5m
Pitt's total volleyball expenses are about four times that amount
 
WVB has $691k in operating expenses
Revenue is only disclosed for football and revenue -
The revenue is inclusive for all other sports (not broken down by team)

To put it in perspective :
Football $54.7mil
Basketball just under $20mil

All other sports combined $24.5m
WVB has $800k in operating expenses, that only covers game-day expenses.
Their total expenses are nearly $3.5 million and that's likely not even covering facilities for training, medical, practice, etc. Those expenses are part of the $50+ million "general expenses*.

The $54.7 million ($49.5 million in 2023) in revenue is absolutely not the revenue generated by the football team. That's just the revenue they are directly responsible for bringing in that the University has decided to attribute to the team. This doesn't include the majority of the television revenue, merchandise purchased outside of gameday at the stadium, the donations not directly attributed to the football team, etc. The real revenue generated by Pitt football is well over $100,000,000.
 
and worth every penny. These women are solid athletes and great ambassadors for Pitt. Wish I could see them in person - good luck ladies in the tournament

Yea. I am fine losing a couple million per year on a non-revenue sport if it gives you a chance to win a Natty. Not sure how much men's soccer loses but those expenses are worth it to. I sort of like the plan to pick 1 or 2 non-revenue sports to try to win a Natty and then fund the others like its D3.
 
WVB has $800k in operating expenses, that only covers game-day expenses.
Their total expenses are nearly $3.5 million and that's likely not even covering facilities for training, medical, practice, etc. Those expenses are part of the $50+ million "general expenses*.

The $54.7 million ($49.5 million in 2023) in revenue is absolutely not the revenue generated by the football team. That's just the revenue they are directly responsible for bringing in that the University has decided to attribute to the team. This doesn't include the majority of the television revenue, merchandise purchased outside of gameday at the stadium, the donations not directly attributed to the football team, etc. The real revenue generated by Pitt football is well over $100,000,000.
It’s how it’s always been reported
You can argue with Pitt reports to the federal government

There is zero chance is over $100mil
Post your data and source
 
It’s how it’s always been reported
You can argue with Pitt reports to the federal government

There is zero chance is over $100mil
Post your data and source
I said the real revenue, not reported. I don’t know who prepares their EADA anymore or advises their financial reporting, but I can’t imagine the school's accounting practices have changed a ton recently considering their reporting seems to be the same. So I can’t definitively say for sure.

Even just looking at reported revenue, it's pretty clear that football is insanely profitable for the school. Athletic revenue last year was $138 million, how much of that do you think of is the result of the football team? Do you really think the other teams are responsible for more than $38 million in reported revenue? What percentage of the ACC revenue do you think only exists because of the football team? Donations? If the football disappeared tomorrow, would Pitt generate $40 million in athletic revenue? I'm sure Pitt Women's track generates $2+ million per year in revenue as reported.

There are also other tricks that are used to keep athletic departments budget neutral. Most notably licensing and facilities. How much money do you think Pitt generates from merchandising? $0 of that used to be attributed to the football team except product sold on gameday at the stadium. Much of that wasn’t even reported to the Athletic Department except certain licensing deals. I can't say if Pitt was one of the schools that charge/charged their athletic department a licensing fee during years with a budget surplus, but it was a known practice.
 
Pitt's reporting of revenue and athletic expenses makes it extremely difficult to determine how far any program is in the red because they show every program breaking even. However, you can get some idea by looking at other schools; Florida State reports losing $1 million, PSU reports losing $1.5 million, and Texas reports losing $1.4 million on women's volleyball.
Other schools aren't Pitt. Is Pitt the same as those 3 schools wrt FB net earnings?
 
I said the real revenue, not reported. I don’t know who prepares their EADA anymore or advises their financial reporting, but I can’t imagine the school's accounting practices have changed a ton recently considering their reporting seems to be the same. So I can’t definitively say for sure.

Even just looking at reported revenue, it's pretty clear that football is insanely profitable for the school. Athletic revenue last year was $138 million, how much of that do you think of is the result of the football team? Do you really think the other teams are responsible for more than $38 million in reported revenue? What percentage of the ACC revenue do you think only exists because of the football team? Donations? If the football disappeared tomorrow, would Pitt generate $40 million in athletic revenue? I'm sure Pitt Women's track generates $2+ million per year in revenue as reported.

There are also other tricks that are used to keep athletic departments budget neutral. Most notably licensing and facilities. How much money do you think Pitt generates from merchandising? $0 of that used to be attributed to the football team except product sold on gameday at the stadium. Much of that wasn’t even reported to the Athletic Department except certain licensing deals. I can't say if Pitt was one of the schools that charge/charged their athletic department a licensing fee during years with a budget surplus, but it was a known practice.
You’re over $100mil is nonsense
Acc tv revenue is $30mil per team .
Are you suggesting we are generating over $70mil in ticket and donation revenue annually ?!?

That’s not attached to reality at all
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarshallGoldberg
You’re over $100mil is nonsense
Acc tv revenue is $30mil per team .
Are you suggesting we are generating over $70mil in ticket and donation revenue annually ?!?

That’s not attached to reality at all
I could be wrong, they could be cooking their numbers in the opposite direction to look good for a potential out from the ACC now. I only know some of the tricks that had been used in the past. It was never $100 million then, but it was far more profitable than the financial reporting claimed.

But tell me where you think the $138 million in revenue is coming from? Wrestling?
 
Not sure which year they are using, but you can get that info directly from Pitt or the EADA database. But Pitt, like every school, uses very creative accounting.

 
You’re over $100mil is nonsense
Acc tv revenue is $30mil per team .
Are you suggesting we are generating over $70mil in ticket and donation revenue annually ?!?

That’s not attached to reality at all

ACC payout was $45 million.

Other revenue source guesstimates

Football tickets: $8 million

MBB tickets: $3 million

Volleyball tickets: $500K

Licensing revenue: ?

Corporate sponsorships: ?

Radio deal: ?

Concessions: ?

Parking: ?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT