Conference Realignment

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
10,778
There was a long essay a few years ago about how little control over their business many Walmart suppliers have.
Remember Rubbermaid ?

There was a time when Walmart gobbled up American suppliers and essentially put them out of business.

Wonder which college sports programs are just a few years away from not existing because schools have lost control of who is running the ship.
 

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,311
I am going to punch holes in the TV rankings I posted yesterday.

First, Nielson does not rate games on the SEC Network, ACC network, CBS Sports Network, PAC-12 Network, ESPN+ and Peacock. Second, Vandy only had one game that was not on the SEC Network (against Alabama with 2.46 million viewers), so their raking is not actually Vandy's, but Bama's for that game.

Others have posted some very good counter points to this, but one thing is clear. You ratings for each game are impacted to large extent by the time slot and Network where your games are played. And the selection of games that were Nielson rated. Bowl games and CFP were not included.

There was discussion earlier about Missouri. They only had six of their games included in the Nielson ratings: Memphis 730 PM on ESPNU(181K), LSU Noon on ESPN (2.34M), uga 330 PM on CBS (7.00M); Tennessee 330 PM on CBS (3.62M); Florida 730 on ESPN (2.27M); Arkansas Fri 400 PM on CBS (4.09M). Their not-Nielson rated games were South Dakota, Middle Tenn, Kansas St, Vandy, Kentucky, & S Carolina. Clearly, time and network mean a ton toward your TV viewership numbers. And, who decides the network and time slot for each game? ESPN. Who benefits most from those ratings? ESPN. My question is about whether Missouri football is really a lot more popular than GT football, or is Missouri getting more favorable TV slots because they are in the SEC?
I think we all know the answer to your final question. It is part of the unbroken circle that generates The Narrative.
 

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,326
Location
Auburn, AL
You have to start somewhere. IMO, this is the proper first step when building/rebuilding a fundraising organization. It isn't easy to get a $1 million dollar donor, but it can be done with a smaller organization than getting 1000 $1000 donors. Stansbury should have put together a strategic plan that addressed both approaches while starting with the whales, but it's hard for me to disagree with that quote in isolation. It really is more effective.
I disagree a little. Yes, it's more effective if your only goal is to raise funds. But many of those chapters have weekly and monthly meetings where coaches, AD staff, and others engage. It builds awareness and participation, not just funding. If you really want a fanbase, that's where to start.
 

TechPhi97

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
778
Location
Davidson, NC
GTAA realizes about $500K a year in investment income. It’s permanent endowment contributions are about $2.5M.

The auditors stated “The Association’s financial outlook is positive based on anticipated revenue growth from the conference, fundraising existing revenue, and external partnerships, as well as reduced annual debt service.”

Translated, “They can pay their bills.” But not by much.

The reason the debt is a problem is you can’t hire. Salaries are $30M. The debt service is about half of that. Think who Tech could hire, or how many more, with running room.

It’s a bare bones operation for D1.
I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, I was looking at this. Investment income is in the $600-700K range. But capital contributions = 3.2M and permanent endowment contributions were $5.1M in 2022.

Additionally, you can see on page 7 that we have ~$160M in investments, which is where the investment income comes from. In 2022 we dipped into those to pay for operating expenses, but it seems that this is a pretty decent safety net.
 

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,326
Location
Auburn, AL
I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, I was looking at this. Investment income is in the $600-700K range. But capital contributions = 3.2M and permanent endowment contributions were $5.1M in 2022.

Additionally, you can see on page 7 that we have ~$160M in investments, which is where the investment income comes from. In 2022 we dipped into those to pay for operating expenses, but it seems that this is a pretty decent safety net.
Yours is more recent than mine.

There's no question that Tech can pay its bills. But ... the current rule of thumb is that to put out a competitive athletic program at the D1 level, one needs at least $100M in revenue. Tech is at $80-ish with about $14M in debt payments, which is basically $66M, net.

That's the problem.
 

roadkill

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,826
Yours is more recent than mine.

There's no question that Tech can pay its bills. But ... the current rule of thumb is that to put out a competitive athletic program at the D1 level, one needs at least $100M in revenue. Tech is at $80-ish with about $14M in debt payments, which is basically $66M, net.

That's the problem.
Not disputing your overall point as it relates to our lack of headroom for salaries, but I am having trouble reconciling the Knight database info here: https://knightnewhousedata.org/fbs/...f-technology#!quicktabs-tab-where_the_money-1 with figures from the GT Financial Statement linked by @TechPhi97. Obviously, the GT statement is a valid source, but we've used Knight as a reference as well.

GT statement lists $85M in total operating revenues. Knight db lists $106M - a sizable difference. Knight's numbers for ACC contribution and ticket sales match GT's closely, which leads me to believe they used GT's statement for their data. But nothing else matches. Hoping someone with more finance background might have an explanation.
 

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,326
Location
Auburn, AL
Not disputing your overall point as it relates to our lack of headroom for salaries, but I am having trouble reconciling the Knight database info here: https://knightnewhousedata.org/fbs/...f-technology#!quicktabs-tab-where_the_money-1 with figures from the GT Financial Statement linked by @TechPhi97. Obviously, the GT statement is a valid source, but we've used Knight as a reference as well.

GT statement lists $85M in total operating revenues. Knight db lists $106M - a sizable difference. Knight's numbers for ACC contribution and ticket sales match GT's closely, which leads me to believe they used GT's statement for their data. But nothing else matches. Hoping someone with more finance background might have an explanation.
You’d have to go line by line. Institutional support is interesting. It’s recognized as Revenue, but in reality, it’s a non cash fee waiver.
 

Dman374

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
56
Crazy thought but..
1707514987917.png
 

forensicbuzz

21st Century Throwback Dad
Messages
8,839
Location
North Shore, Chicago
Agree ESPN wasn't crazy about signing up ACC, but ACC was pleased to get half as much as for twice as long.
ESPN believed the ACC would get better and advertisers would keep wanting way more football content. The opposite has happen.

ALSO, THEIR ARE OTHER TV STREAMING AND BETTING ORGANIZATIONS TRYING TO GET CONTENT.

ESPN and others now think so little about the ACC that its UNDEFEATED champ , didn't make the TV playoffs.

Adding the southern left overs of PAC 12 and little SMU , lnly makes it worse.

Too few top teams and way too many rent seekers.
This is a misleading comment. The correct comment was that ESPN and others wanted an SEC team in the 4-team playoff, and this was the only way to accomplish it. Either undefeated FSU or undefeated Washington was going to have to be left out. FSU's QB getting hurt gave them an avenue to argue it (although a weak argument). Had uga won, FSU would have been in the 4-team playoff. Had Texas, Washington, or Michigan lost in their championship game, FSU would have been in the 4-team playoff. Had Auburn beat Alabama and Alabama beat uga, uga and FSU would have been in the 4-team playoff.
 

forensicbuzz

21st Century Throwback Dad
Messages
8,839
Location
North Shore, Chicago
I would bet the average GT grad is more able to donate/able to donate more than the average FSU grad, but the average GT grad doesn't care much about GT football success and thus is not going to donate. Having wealthy alumni only matters if they are interested in what you are selling. The total number of donors to GT football is I'm sure far exceeded by the total number of donors to FSU.
I don't think it's that they don't care, I think it's more that they feel there are better uses of their money than to give it to an organization designed to cater to a bunch of teenagers so that they can beat their chest and proclaim that their alma mater is better than everyone else's. Right or wrong, that tends to be some of the sentiment.
 

Richard7125

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
450
I don't think it's that they don't care, I think it's more that they feel there are better uses of their money than to give it to an organization designed to cater to a bunch of teenagers so that they can beat their chest and proclaim that their alma mater is better than everyone else's. Right or wrong, that tends to be some of the sentiment.
In the context of donating to college football, “They don’t care” is pretty much synonymous with “they feel there are better uses of their money….”
 

yeti92

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,042
I don't think it's that they don't care, I think it's more that they feel there are better uses of their money than to give it to an organization designed to cater to a bunch of teenagers so that they can beat their chest and proclaim that their alma mater is better than everyone else's. Right or wrong, that tends to be some of the sentiment.
That group exists as well, but I'm more talking about the portion of alumni who don't have any interest in football, which is a significant chunk. I interviewed a recent Tech grad the other week who was the stereotypical Tech nerd - very smart, and very into things like cosplay and DragonCon. I asked him if he watched Tech this past season and he said no, he has no interest in football. Battlebots and jousting at the Renaissance Fair were more up his alley. There are tons of alumni who, like him, have zero interest in football in general, and you are going to be pretty hard-pressed to get them interested, much less donating to Tech football.
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
10,778
That group exists as well, but I'm more talking about the portion of alumni who don't have any interest in football, which is a significant chunk. I interviewed a recent Tech grad the other week who was the stereotypical Tech nerd - very smart, and very into things like cosplay and DragonCon. I asked him if he watched Tech this past season and he said no, he has no interest in football. Battlebots and jousting at the Renaissance Fair were more up his alley. There are tons of alumni who, like him, have zero interest in football in general, and you are going to be pretty hard-pressed to get them interested, much less donating to Tech football.
Always wondered if it would be worth the resources and effort to market to these guys while they are still in school, extolling the virtues of nerd-level Xs and Os strategy and comparing it to board games.
 

Randy Carson

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,306
Location
Apex, NC
I would bet the average GT grad is more able to donate/able to donate more than the average FSU grad, but the average GT grad doesn't care much about GT football success and thus is not going to donate. Having wealthy alumni only matters if they are interested in what you are selling. The total number of donors to GT football is I'm sure far exceeded by the total number of donors to FSU.
Dunno is this is really true, but I've heard it said that Tech's money men would rather have their name on the side of a research lab than an athletic facility.
 

gtbb

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
57
I've worked with numerous Tech grads over the years. They rarely follow Tech football. Some do, but the majority couldn't care less.
 

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,311
Remember Rubbermaid ?

There was a time when Walmart gobbled up American suppliers and essentially put them out of business.

Wonder which college sports programs are just a few years away from not existing because schools have lost control of who is running the ship.
Bingo! How soon we forget.
 

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,311
I've worked with numerous Tech grads over the years. They rarely follow Tech football. Some do, but the majority couldn't care less.
The company I work with is almost all Tech guys. It’s a small company and there are 7 Tech grads that I know of, including me. I believe I’m the only one who thinks about football. I’m one of two who even wear GT gear. One of them even asked once if everything I own has a GT on it. Only one other guy ever wears anything with a GT on it. Every one of them is making a whole lot of money.
 
Top