Highest Revenue Earning Athletic Programs 2023

[bhoffman123]

True - it is way in our favor not funding other programs. You rational is self defeating.

Self defeating for what goal. Winning the directors cup? Yeah. I do t care about that. Football and basketball winning I care about.

 

[roadkill]

If we’d stop the stupid hires and go get a quality HC, we’d be much better off. Carson, Lewis, and Collins were all stupid hires all about 25 years apart.

I'm not a Carson apologist and he certainly wasn't our best coaching hire, but it's an insult to him to be lumped in that same category as the other two. He was a .500 coach, and we have him to thank for the Budweiser song.

 

[stinger78]

I'm not a Carson apologist and he certainly wasn't our best coaching hire, but it's an insult to him to be lumped in that same category as the other two. He was a .500 coach, and we have him to thank for the Budweiser song.

The Budweiser song was the best part of his tenure. CBC was not HC material. He was a good defensive coach, as were the other two.

 

[roadkill]

The Budweiser song was the best part of his tenure. CBC was not HC material. He was a good defensive coach, as were the other two.

Are you seriously doubling down that Carson's tenure was in the same category as the other ones whose names should not be mentioned? If TFG had Carson's record, he might still be our coach.

Carson actually went 9-3 in 1970 and won the Sun Bowl. Do you have a personal grudge against him? Otherwise your post makes no sense.

 

[RonJohn]

It's that B1G tv money. The very reason Clemson and FSU want out.

No it isn't. The difference in payouts from ACC to Big10 in 2023 was about $15 million. The gap is going to increase, but that is not the reason that those three schools were right around #25. Give FSU that extra $15 million and they would move from #18 to #16. Today it isn't as big as the Twitter people would have you believe. In 6-10 years it will be a $50-60 million difference if nothing increases in the ACC. But at the moment, it isn't a huge difference.

 

[forensicbuzz]

LOL! Well, um, ok. You can believe what you want to believe. UNC and Virginia are almost always in or near the top 10 in the NCAA director's cup standings and we rarely break the top 50.

If the Director’s Cup is not sufficient, check out the ACC Championshios and see how we fare against either program. The suggestion.that we are remotely close to either school in overall athletics is one of the funniest cheap fake takes I have heard in a while.

List of Atlantic Coast Conference champions - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

It amazes me how aggressive and condescending you are to fellow GT fans when someone offers a contrary opinion. Try discourse instead of ridicule.

The Director’s Cup is a good barometer, but it has a lot to do with the number of teams you field, as well, so that skews the numbers. Both programs have been in the ACC 35 years longer than GT, so championships…yeah, whatever. In the sports we participate in, we more than hold our own against those two programs (with basketball being the exception). If you want to tear down your school, I suppose you can.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Winning NCAA Championships matter for an Athletic Department. UNC has way more than GT. No comparison. That we don’t play in those sports is a lick on GT.

I agree winning championships matter. The fact we field 18 varsity sports versus everyone else in the 20’s or 30’s is our choice, but it doesn’t diminish our athletic program in my opinion. UVa has 25 varsity sports and UNC have 28, we have 18. So, the revenue we generate has to cover less programs, which means more $ per team. That’s a good thing.

 

[forensicbuzz]

It counts your performance in the sports you compete. We have less programs, but we also perform towards the bottom of the ACC in most of those programs in which we compete. Outside of golf, which program at Tech is always in the top 25?

This is not true at all. Look at Volleyball, Tennis, and Baseball. We’re perennially in the Top25. We also show well in Track & Field and Swimming & Diving, which tends to be more individual performance than team performance. We don’t perform towards the bottom of the ACC in any program. Even our Women’s BB team has been pretty good recently, making the NCAA Tourney several years in a row as an At-Large team.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

This is not true at all. Look at Volleyball, Tennis, and Baseball. We’re perennially in the Top25. We also show well in Track & Field and Swimming & Diving, which tends to be more individual performance than team performance. We don’t perform towards the bottom of the ACC in any program. Even our Women’s BB team has been pretty good recently, making the NCAA Tourney several years in a row as an At-Large team.

We have not perennially finished in the top 25 in baseball for well over a decade. Through this year's winter schedule, only two teams made the postseason; football and volleyball. Our T&F and swim teams have won a single ACC championship in their existence for both men's or women's. We have some individuals who perform well, but overall the teams do not. You have some serious gold colored glasses if you think our athletic department is in the top half of the ACC across all sports.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

It amazes me how aggressive and condescending you are to fellow GT fans when someone offers a contrary opinion. Try discourse instead of ridicule.

The Director’s Cup is a good barometer, but it has a lot to do with the number of teams you field, as well, so that skews the numbers. Both programs have been in the ACC 35 years longer than GT, so championships…yeah, whatever. In the sports we participate in, we more than hold our own against those two programs (with basketball being the exception). If you want to tear down your school, I suppose you can.

If you cannot handle "believe what you want to believe" I suggest staying off social media.

How many ACC championships do we have compared to either UNC or Virginia over the past decade? Both UNC and Virginia have over 30 championships to our five, four in golf and one in basketball. We are not remotely close to either program.

 

[bensaysitathome]

No it isn't. The difference in payouts from ACC to Big10 in 2023 was about $15 million. The gap is going to increase, but that is not the reason that those three schools were right around #25. Give FSU that extra $15 million and they would move from #18 to #16. Today it isn't as big as the Twitter people would have you believe. In 6-10 years it will be a $50-60 million difference if nothing increases in the ACC. But at the moment, it isn't a huge difference.

I hear you, but the difference between 60 and 45 is pretty significant. Also, the difference between #24 and #34 is about 15 million dollars, which is the difference in tv money. We're not talking #16 to #18, we're taking tech and #24/#25.

 

[stinger78]

Are you seriously doubling down that Carson's tenure was in the same category as the other ones whose names should not be mentioned? If TFG had Carson's record, he might still be our coach.

Carson actually went 9-3 in 1970 and won the Sun Bowl. Do you have a personal grudge against him? Otherwise your post makes no sense.

It’s a broad category. Ha!

No, Carson wasn’t as bad as the other two, BUT, he was a crappy hire - and that was my point if you’ll go back and read my post. AD Dodd had Doug Dickey lined up to cone coach GT but the board overruled him and hired Carson.

 

[AugustaSwarm]

It counts your performance in the sports you compete. We have less programs, but we also perform towards the bottom of the ACC in most of those programs in which we compete. Outside of golf, which program at Tech is always in the top 25?

Hockey, fencing, water polo, etc. Yeah, this doesn't mean much to me.

 

[roadkill]

No it isn't. The difference in payouts from ACC to Big10 in 2023 was about $15 million. The gap is going to increase, but that is not the reason that those three schools were right around #25. Give FSU that extra $15 million and they would move from #18 to #16. Today it isn't as big as the Twitter people would have you believe. In 6-10 years it will be a $50-60 million difference if nothing increases in the ACC. But at the moment, it isn't a huge difference.

I also find it ironic that Maryland left the ACC for BIG10 money, yet they sit at 44.

 

[RonJohn]

I hear you, but the difference between 60 and 45 is pretty significant. Also, the difference between #24 and #34 is about 15 million dollars, which is the difference in tv money. We're not talking #16 to #18, we're taking tech and #24/#25.

It depends on ratios and perspective. Is someone who makes 135K per year in a different tier than someone who makes $120k? Sure the extra $15k is nice to have, but it doesn't put you in another tier. What about a $265k salary vs $250k? Are those people in a different tier?

I was responding to your post that the reason that those three Big10 schools make so much money is the Big10 money. In a few years it will be a significant difference. Currently it is a difference, but it isn't relatively significant.

 

[UgaBlows]

Hockey, fencing, water polo, etc. Yeah, this doesn't mean much to me.

This,

 

[AugustaSwarm]

From some of the stuff that's been in other threads about the AD budget increases the last couple years under Batt I wonder what the list looked like 2 years ago.

It would be VERY interesting to see this list over time.

SMU is currently riding a rocket upwards from a funding perspective. That'll be interesting to watch.

 

[Techster]

I would look at revenue in terms of "tiers" as opposed the actual dollar amounts. There are obviously some schools who do more with less relative to their tier (Missouri and Oregon is a good example), and some schools that do less with more (Texas A&M, Nebraska). There comes point of diminishing returns, and there are naturally overlaps as this isn't really an exact science in terms of revenue versus expected outcomes.

GT is comfortably in the 3rd tier, and within the margins of the 2nd tier. Elite tier would easily be any school that can cross the $200 million barrier. Given that GT has less sports than some of the schools above us, you can make the argument that GT's revenue tier makes us an underachiever for at least the two major sports...though I expect that to change soon.

Bottom line is, regardless of if you're underachieving or not, it's always better to be as high on the list of revenue tiers as possible. As they say, money doesn't make life easier, it just gives you more options. What you do from there is up to you.

 

[MWBATL]

The point someone made earlier is most relevant to this argument. It is not what GT revenue was last year...it is what GT revenue has been for the last decade. Those arguing that we are a disappointment must show that data supporting their claims. I don't know that data (and know such data is hard to obtain reliably) but my sense is that our spending has been well below similar schools such as UNC and UVa.

 

[Techster]

It depends on ratios and perspective. Is someone who makes 135K per year in a different tier than someone who makes $120k? Sure the extra $15k is nice to have, but it doesn't put you in another tier. What about a $265k salary vs $250k? Are those people in a different tier?

I was responding to your post that the reason that those three Big10 schools make so much money is the Big10 money. In a few years it will be a significant difference. Currently it is a difference, but it isn't relatively significant.

For GT, $15 million would represent more than 10% of our revenue. From there, it comes down to decision making.

For instance, if GT had an extra $10-15 million/year to "play" with, GT could have easily afforded Jamey Chadwell or Willie Fritz...and to go even further, GT probably would have avoided the Geoff Collins fiasco because our pool of coaching candidates would have been larger.

As I said in my previous post, money doesn't make life easier, it just gives you more options.