That is net. I think Penn State had $1.2 million profit the last year I saw. The hockey playing schools in the Big Ten get an additional $2 million a year from the BTN. Those schools draw 5,000 plus a game and have big time boosters. They are outliers but it is definitely possible to be profitable program. I doubt Pitt could do the same unless like Penn State they had a big time donor paying. The other programs are king established programs with a long hockey history.
I think Pegula ended up closer to $120M by the time it was all said and done. Word is that the whole hockey thing pretty much tapped him out when it came to donating to PSU, which I’m sure James Franklin is thrilled about.
The thread broadened out to discuss non revenue generating sports. I was thinking beyond hockey.
So we need to have an arms race in every sport? Cut to the chase and give each kid a Lamborghini and train in a facility with gold weights. So sick of the escalating arms race in sports. It’s all bullshit.
I don’t think that anyone would look at Pitt’s facilities and see anything like an arms race. The Petersen Sports Complex was a huge improvement, but is still middle of the road for ACC standards. Same with the Pete and Trees Pool. The Fitzgerald Field House isn’t even up to high school standards, and the track and cross-country programs don’t even have a facility. The Olympic sports strength and conditioning facility is solidly below average (largely because it’s in the Fitzgerald Field House), though having the Cost Center on campus and not used by football is an advantage. Football with Heinz Field and the UPMC complex is probably the only one that’s a solidly above-average ACC facility, and we all know that Pitt didn’t build that itself.
Here's the thing, if you told Pitt boosters:
There us absolutely nothing stopping the boosters from donating to a hockey rink and to the football and basketball programs to do those things.
This doesn’t make any sense. There is zero indication that Pitt is currently underpaying or underfunding football or basketball, either in coaches’ salaries or operating budgets. Capel makes well over $3M right now, and they offered Hurley more than that. Narduzzi is one of the highest-paid coaches in the ACC, and both programs just had significant facility renovations.
And again. Absolutely no one is stopping the boosters from doing what smf is saying.
Pitt Basketball is in a death spiral. There are only 2 ways out:
I know its not supposed to be zero sum but they are debt financing and fundraising for Olympic sports when most of that effort needs to go to basketball and football first.
Again, there’s no indication that they aren’t currently or won’t be willing to invest whatever they need to invest into basketball and football. Our spending in those two sports is very competitive in the ACC, and in the event that we end up replacing Narduzzi and/or Capel in the next year or two, there’s no indication that (1) we won’t be willing to spend competitively to hire new coaches; and (2) Victory Heights has anything to do with football/basketball budget numbers. You’re creating a zero sum game that doesn’t exist.
If we replace Capel or Narduzzi, its going to be with a mid-major lottery ticket or P5 assistant lottery ticket. If they are willing to spend $300 million on volleyball, they should be willing to spend an extra $6-$7 million/year on football and basketball to land a big-time coach. They wont though
This isn’t supported by the reality where Jeff Capel and Pat Narduzzi are both among the highest-paid coaches in the conference. In the event that they need to replace either one, the current spending trends give no reason to believe anything other than that Pitt will do whatever it can to hire the best coach it can, and pay that coach what he’s worth. Joe Moorhead isn’t going to get paid as much as Dabo Swinney, but just because Pitt hires Joe Moorhead instead of Dabo doesn’t mean that they aren’t willing to pay what it takes to hire a very good coach, and put their salary figures close to the top of the conference. Same with basketball. You’re making an argument that isn’t supported by current trends and doesn’t exist.
Women's basketball is probably the least profitable sport because due to Title IX, they have to pay their coaches considerably more than they are worth. Ticket sales are close to $0 even pre-Covid and I would guess their recruiting budget ranks only behind football and men's basketball.
Waldrum probably makes more than Fisher. Lance White has been at Pitt less time than either, had zero head coaching experience before Pitt, and has had zero success worthy of a raise. There's no way he is getting paid more than either of those coaches.
Yes, there are several ways to look at it. I was not considering the sports which have basically zero revenue. I was thinking some sort of revenue-to-cost ratio. Volleyball and wrestling actually have paid attendance. FWIW, the ACC actually mandates that all conference members offer either women's volleyball or women's soccer, and GT is the only team that doesn't have both.
WBB makes $0 from ESPN. Football is 80%. Men's basketball is 20%. Everything else is filler. Ratings slightly better to dead air.
In 2019-20, Lance White made $625K, which is a higher base salary than the Chancellor. He definitely makes more than Waldrum and Fisher, or any other non-revenue head coach in the athletic department, none of whom merited listing on Pitt's IRS 990.
Wow I was way off with my guess of $300K or more. But, yea, women's hoops is EASILY the biggest money loser mostly because they have to fund it very well due to Title IX.
Dejan is being a dickhead. Nobody gives a f**k about RMU Hockey. They are going all in on football and basketball. Good for them. Dr. Howard is a rising star. He was even featured in those NCAA commercials during the NCAA Basketball Tournament. These decisions are never easy but they were correct. RMU Hockey had 17 seasons to gain a fanbase and they didnt. It was an interesting experiment but an epic failure.
