Is there "another level" of football?

[slugboy]

If I just responded off the cuff, I'd say there are multiple levels, and Alabama is at one level, and Clemson and UGA are at a next level, then teams 4-10 or 12 are at another, then other groups. So, I thought I'd look

Here's F+ (combined FEI and S&P+)

It looks pretty smooth to me, like there are gradual differences between teams. This is one of the better ratings for Tech, putting us at #47. Others are less flattering.

It doesn't look like there are levels to me. It looks like there is a massive climb from us to the top 25, much less the top 5 playoff caliber teams. But it's all made up of individual teams, and not any real "levels".

Is it money? I think that's a big part of it. Here's the 2016-2017 NCAA Athletic Finances. We're #51, so we're not really punching much above our weight, if we are punching above it at all.

Rank... School ……. Revenue ……….. Expenses
1...…...Texas ….…...$214,830,647... $207,022,323
5...…..Alabama......$174,307,419 ….$158,646,962
6...…..Georgia....….$157,852,479 ... $119,218,908
17...…Kentucky.....$130,706,744.... $125,333,866
26......Clemson …. $112,600,964 ... $111,126,235
35.North Carolina..$96,551,626 ….. $96,540,823
39....Virginia...…….$92,865,175 ….. $100,324,517
40..OK State...…….$91,644,865 ….. $89,833,094
51...Georgia Tech... $81,762,024...... $84,852,123
59...South Florida..$49,960,338 ..... $48,227,500

So, comparing $$$ to outcomes, Clemson punches WAY above their weight class, and so does Oklahoma State. Not really us.

If it's a $$$ problem, then we need to get smarter at how we spend our money and get more in.

At any rate, we have 46 teams to climb over to get to the top, and Clemson just has one or two. Just to get into the top 25, we've got 22 teams to climb over, and 26 teams to climb over in terms of budget and fan revenue.

So, this is where we are.

 

[MWBATL]

This seems quite accurate in summarizing where GT football is today.

 

[LibertyTurns]

We have only 2 Power 5 teams below us? Really just 2? Wash St & Or St.

 

[4shotB]

Interesting. however, if you are looking at what GT spends AND IF I interpret your graph correctly, the revenue and expenses are for ALL athletics...so I don't think the comparison of FB FEI and total expenditures is an apples to apples comparison.People will tell you getting accurate data for FB only spending is difficult if not impossible.

I think the idea of levels is appropriate. Level 1 teams are in the hunt annually for the CFP and are disappointed when they don't make them. There are maybe 5-7 teams here. Level 2 is consistent or frequent top 25 teams (Michigan State, ND, Wisconsin, Auburn etc.) These teams can occasionally beat the level 1 teams and will occasionally be in the mix for the CFP. Level 3 are teams 25 to 50. Decent, competitive but are frequently and noticeably outclassed against the OSU's and Clemson's of the world. A good season for teams in this group are appearances in the top 25 or possibly top 10 at year end. This is where us and most of our ACC brethren currently reside.

 

[tech_wreck47]

If I just responded off the cuff, I'd say there are multiple levels, and Alabama is at one level, and Clemson and UGA are at a next level, then teams 4-10 or 12 are at another, then other groups. So, I thought I'd look

Here's F+ (combined FEI and S&P+)
View attachment 4570
It looks pretty smooth to me, like there are gradual differences between teams. This is one of the better ratings for Tech, putting us at #47. Others are less flattering.

It doesn't look like there are levels to me. It looks like there is a massive climb from us to the top 25, much less the top 5 playoff caliber teams. But it's all made up of individual teams, and not any real "levels".

Is it money? I think that's a big part of it. Here's the 2016-2017 NCAA Athletic Finances. We're #51, so we're not really punching much above our weight, if we are punching above it at all.

Rank... School ……. Revenue ……….. Expenses
1...…...Texas ….…...$214,830,647... $207,022,323
5...…..Alabama......$174,307,419 ….$158,646,962
6...…..Georgia....….$157,852,479 ... $119,218,908
17...…Kentucky.....$130,706,744.... $125,333,866
26......Clemson …. $112,600,964 ... $111,126,235
35.North Carolina..$96,551,626 ….. $96,540,823
39....Virginia...…….$92,865,175 ….. $100,324,517
40..OK State...…….$91,644,865 ….. $89,833,094
51...Georgia Tech... $81,762,024...... $84,852,123
59...South Florida..$49,960,338 ..... $48,227,500

So, comparing $$$ to outcomes, Clemson punches WAY above their weight class, and so does Oklahoma State. Not really us.

If it's a $$$ problem, then we need to get smarter at how we spend our money and get more in.

At any rate, we have 46 teams to climb over to get to the top, and Clemson just has one or two. Just to get into the top 25, we've got 22 teams to climb over, and 26 teams to climb over in terms of budget and fan revenue.

So, this is where we are.

Issue with these ranking are SOS. I have no doubt we are better than many teams above us in these rankings. However, thanks for the other info, I agree there is a HUGE gap and I don’t see that changing unless the NCAA does something about it, and I don’t see that happening.

 

[stingem103]

Kind of surprised Clemson is that low. GT needs to figure out how to turn a profit consisently in college Athletics. Easy way to fix that is for us to GIVE MORE however expenses will increase likely with revenue.

T Stan is focusing on the right things (money for facilities). Hopefully we see these numbers get better. We as supporters still need to actually make something happen otherwise this type of data stays the same or gets worse.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Interesting. however, if you are looking at what GT spends AND IF I interpret your graph correctly, the revenue and expenses are for ALL athletics...so I don't think the comparison of FB FEI and total expenditures is an apples to apples comparison.People will tell you getting accurate data for FB only spending is difficult if not impossible.

I think the idea of levels is appropriate. Level 1 teams are in the hunt annually for the CFP and are disappointed when they don't make them. There are maybe 5-7 teams here. Level 2 is consistent or frequent top 25 teams (Michigan State, ND, Wisconsin, Auburn etc.) These teams can occasionally beat the level 1 teams and will occasionally be in the mix for the CFP. Level 3 are teams 25 to 50. Decent, competitive but are frequently and noticeably outclassed against the OSU's and Clemson's of the world. A good season for teams in this group are appearances in the top 25 or possibly top 10 at year end. This is where us and most of our ACC brethren currently reside.

We should be aiming for level to and should have a realistic possibility of getting there if we put the required resources in. Big IF.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Kind of surprised Clemson is that low. GT needs to figure out how to turn a profit consisently in college Athletics. Easy way to fix that is for us to GIVE MORE however expenses will increase likely with revenue.

T Stan is focusing on the right things (money for facilities). Hopefully we see these numbers get better. We as supporters still need to actually make something happen otherwise this type of data stays the same or gets worse.

The #1 most important thing fans can do is attend games and get loud. That would make us look more like a factory to recruits even if we don’t increase funding. Appearance matters...true in facilities and true in the seats.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Some interesting data in here. Clemp tripled their contributions in the last 10 years. Huge jump between 2015 & 2016 for obvious reasons. Mutt has doubled theirs. Mutt has raised their ticket prices even to what we’re raising annually in contributions, $11M. We’re at 80% of the contributions what we were 10 years ago. Ticket sales revenue is about even. Hell, we’re not even maintaining the status quo we’re going backwards. We’re whining about $4-5M buyouts. Crap that’s less than 2 weeks revenue for the immediate competition.

Having a lot of high net worth fans we’re getting smoked by the Walmart cashiers, bag boys, cart pushers and stock boys.

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

I thought I saw where ilovetheoption posted a link that showed football only money and we were spending something like $17M on football and 61 out of 65 P5 teams. That would say we are punching a bit above our weight. Where does all the rest of the money got? interest?

 

[stingem103]

The #1 most important thing fans can do is attend games and get loud. That would make us look more like a factory to recruits even if we don’t increase funding. Appearance matters...true in facilities and true in the seats.

Agreed and that is something we as fans actually have control over. I wish our fans would show up to BDS all the time instead of just hoping things will get better if they hide at the house while screaming for a new coach when things dont go well. You have to put the cart in front of the horse to a degree....I was actually a GTAA intern during my time at GT and the recruits that visited on gameday would routinely be somewhat disappointed at our fan support....there is no doubt that this costs us recruits.

T Stan is doing the right things with marketing plus Adidas is helping our brand too. Our gear upgrade in of itself should pay some dividends in the long run...we dug a deep hole over the last two decades. GT has given so much to me that I consider it an honor to help things get better....hope some other folks feel the same way so we can actually change things.

 

[LibertyTurns]

I thought I saw where ilovetheoption posted a link that showed football only money and we were spending something like $17M on football and 61 out of 65 P5 teams. That would say we are punching a bit above our weight. Where does all the rest of the money got? interest?

There’s about $215M in outstanding debt which we pay about $13M/year to service. That’s a big slice.

Not sure if it’s still the case but 2020’s debt needs to be reserviced. That bond is like $25-30M. That’s going to take a chunk out of future revenue because there’s no way we’re getting the same terms as is 2012.

Someone can chime in because I think ACC network revenue kicks in around 2019. Estimates are $5M/yr at onset and as high as $15M/yr once the network matures. Hope the Finance guys have sharp pencils.

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

There’s about $215M in outstanding debt which we pay about $13M/year to service. That’s a big slice.

Not sure if it’s still the case but 2020’s debt needs to be reserviced. That bond is like $25-30M. That’s going to take a chunk out of future revenue because there’s no way we’re getting the same terms as is 2012.

Someone can chime in because I think ACC network revenue kicks in around 2019. Estimates are $5M/yr at onset and as high as $15M/yr once the network matures. Hope the Finance guys have sharp pencils.

So we are spending $17M on football and $13M on interest. Was that Rad's doing with all the construction projects?

 

[AUFC]

There are 3 levels for me:

CFP competitor programs: ~6-8 teams (Alabama, Georgia, Clemson, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Oklahoma)
Top G5+rest of P5: 60 teams
Rest of G5: 60 teams

80% of seasons, you can throw those 6 teams into a hat and draw 4 teams for your playoff. A Pac-12 champion might sneak in with an undefeated season every once in a while. Really you could throw the bottom 2 tiers into the same category if we're being honest. You could claim the separator for Tier 2 and Tier 3 is that T2 is battling for NY6 Bowls and T3 is just battling to win 6 games and make the Nobody Is Watching This Bowl.

 

[LibertyTurns]

So we are spending $17M on football and $13M on interest. Was that Rad's doing with all the construction projects?

I think we’re the 5th most debt laden program in all the land. At least we’re not Berkeley. They’ve got double our debt.

Allegedly our debt is linked to pledged donor contributions so theoretically it doesn’t cut into operations budgets. There’s just not enough visibility in the annual financial statements for me to decipher it all. I’m used to the Finance CPAs doing their voodoo and handing me a summary quite frankly.

Bottom line: Radakovic spent a lot, Bobinski didn’t keep up with the Joneses in fundraising & Stansbury has a real crap sandwich on his hands. One the other side of the fence we’ve got the crowd looking to upgrade coaching & recruiting staffs, etc while the Titanic is taking on water.

We need the ACC deal to pay off. We need basketball to become relevant again so they start generating revenue. We need Stansbury’s $125M challenge to come to fruition so we can follow it up quickly with a $250M one right behind it. We need to pray for undeserved good fortune on the gridiron & basketball courts. We need interest rates to quit rising. We need a healthy economy so people can afford to go to games. We need to ply them with interesting game day offerings, and if we can better opponents even if we lose.

Hate to post such a doom & gloom scenario but we really are boxed in without a lot of room to maneuver. Like our country, we need a spending diet and hope revenues keep increasing.

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

I think we’re the 5th most debt laden program in all the land. At least we’re not Berkeley. They’ve got double our debt.

Allegedly our debt is linked to pledged donor contributions so theoretically it doesn’t cut into operations budgets. There’s just not enough visibility in the annual financial statements for me to decipher it all. I’m used to the Finance CPAs doing their voodoo and handing me a summary quite frankly.

Bottom line: Radakovic spent a lot, Bobinski didn’t keep up with the Joneses in fundraising & Stansbury has a real crap sandwich on his hands. One the other side of the fence we’ve got the crowd looking to upgrade coaching & recruiting staffs, etc while the Titanic is taking on water.

We need the ACC deal to pay off. We need basketball to become relevant again so they start generating revenue. We need Stansbury’s $125M challenge to come to fruition so we can follow it up quickly with a $250M one right behind it. We need to pray for undeserved good fortune on the gridiron & basketball courts. We need interest rates to quit rising. We need a healthy economy so people can afford to go to games. We need to ply them with interesting game day offerings, and if we can better opponents even if we lose.

Hate to post such a doom & gloom scenario but we really are boxed in without a lot of room to maneuver. Like our country, we need a spending diet and hope revenues keep increasing.

And with the prevalent thoughts of the land, that is probably interest only payments and the debt is staying the same.

 

[knoxjacket]

There are 3 levels for me:

CFP competitor programs: ~6-8 teams (Alabama, Georgia, Clemson, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Oklahoma)
Top G5+rest of P5: 60 teams
Rest of G5: 60 teams

80% of seasons, you can throw those 6 teams into a hat and draw 4 teams for your playoff. A Pac-12 champion might sneak in with an undefeated season every once in a while. Really you could throw the bottom 2 tiers into the same category if we're being honest. You could claim the separator for Tier 2 and Tier 3 is that T2 is battling for NY6 Bowls and T3 is just battling to win 6 games and make the Nobody Is Watching This Bowl.

You could not throw the bottom tiers together. The difference between Coastal Carolina and Georgia Tech is way bigger than the difference between Georgia and Georgia Tech.

 

[LibertyTurns]

And with the prevalent thoughts of the land, that is probably interest only payments and the debt is staying the same.

It’s a typical bond. Principal decreases around 1% a year on our debt overall so we’re booking about $2M to the good every year. Bottom line is we’re way to debt heavy & it’s yet another drag on a program struggling to succeed. The $90M in upgrades under the $125 M challenge are probably all necessary to compete effectively but make no mistake it’s another level of risk we don’t currently have.

 

[Lavoisier]

We currently have the least money from TV of the P5 conferences. The ACC network should move us well past the Pac12 and about the same as the Big12 on a per school basis. We are not going to close the gap with the SEC or Big10 and they already have had such a huge head start.

TStan's plan seems to be small projects every year and a big one every few such as the lobby, locker room, and the recruiting drive leading up to the 2020 Edge Center remodeling. Things like a new lobby are all small potatoes when you look at the #s posted above, but they go a long way just to keep us even with some teams and generate buzz. Hopefully we do something besides the broadcast facility for 2019 before the big 2020 Edge Center renovation happens. Maybe another recruiting drive or maybe something with the weight room. Clearly the money is out there for this stuff, the Athletic Department just needs to drum it up.

Edit: $900,000 a year is coming off the books after 2019 for Paul Hewitt's buyout.

 

[AUFC]

You could not throw the bottom tiers together. The difference between Coastal Carolina and Georgia Tech is way bigger than the difference between Georgia and Georgia Tech.

I guess I'm just coming at it from the perspective as all are playing to win a national championship and the Georgia Techs and Coastal Carolinas have similarly low odds of pulling that off. Definitely would say it's unfair to put those tiers together though because Georgia Tech lucking into a 13-0 season would put them in the CFP whereas Coastal Carolina going 13-0 would just leave them ranked, possibly with a NY6.