|
Replies: 21
| visibility 556
|
Webmaster [∞]
TigerPulse: 100%
∞
Posts: 46515
Joined: 2012
|
TNET: Clemson men's basketball surplus slightly up in latest review
Jun 22, 2021, 2:08 PM
|
|
Clemson men's basketball surplus slightly up in latest review
Clemson men's basketball revenue was slightly up in the latest department review. Brad Brownell's program generated $9.3 million in the pandemic-shortened 2019-20 sports season, which ranked 58th overall per Syracuse.com. Per that same review, Clemson's revenue ranked 10th in the ACC, while its spen Read Update » |
|
|
|
|
 |
110%er [6825]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: TNET: Clemson men's basketball surplus slightly up in latest review
Jun 22, 2021, 3:32 PM
|
|
Go Tigers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [62563]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 18217
Joined: 2020
|
Re: TNET: Clemson men's basketball surplus slightly up in latest review
Jun 22, 2021, 5:42 PM
|
|
Go Tigers... I guess. Glad it's a surplus and will be the first to admit, I know nothing about bball but from this, we're 64th in the nation spending and nearly last in the ACC. Guess we should celebrate the fact we're getting a good bang for the buck? Yes/no?
Or is it more telling that we just don't spend enough. Wonder how our other sports are ranked.
Since we're on bball, it was a pleasant surprise to see we're hosting a couple top 100 players. Figured there'd be more chatter about it. What's our chances on getting a commit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6825]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: TNET: Clemson men's basketball surplus slightly up in latest review
Jun 22, 2021, 9:06 PM
|
|
IDK, this is always a head scratcher - and that Clemson just always finds a way to fight above its weight.
the only way I can explain is: "that was a conplisult- part compliment, part insult" and my only real response would be shrug, go tigers. I am glad we are staying in the black - that is good but it also telling that other programs are willing to double our expenditures and it would take the basketball program to go from a donor to a subsidized program to crack that level and I am not sure about that decision.
Yeah, a little more attention could be given to the potential talent pool but we rather argue about Jawja's preseason prowess and espn idiot's hottakes. lol.... I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [62563]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 18217
Joined: 2020
|
Re: TNET: Clemson men's basketball surplus slightly up in latest review
Jun 23, 2021, 2:07 PM
|
|
Thanks FutureDoc. I spit my coffee out reading your response! Well said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6825]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: TNET: Clemson men's basketball surplus slightly up in latest review
Jun 23, 2021, 3:34 PM
|
|
not a problem... although never waste good coffee - cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [50649]
TigerPulse: 79%
58
Posts: 36963
Joined: 2003
|
Cliffs Notes for those who don’t want to read the article:
Jun 22, 2021, 8:13 PM
|
|
For men’s basketball, we spent $7.9 million last year, which ranks 13th in the ACC (out of 15 teams) and 64th nationally.
With regard to the rest of the ACC, Duke spent $19.9 million, and Louisville spent $19.8 million. In other words, both spent well over twice what we did.
In terms of our return on investment, we generated $9.3 million in revenue, which ranks 10th in the ACC and 58th nationally.
Also, on the court we finished 5th in the ACC and were the 27th overall seed in the NCAA Tournament last year.
In other words, we overachieved. Big time. But of course that doesn’t stop some people from complaining that our coach stinks and that he’s paid too much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [158]
TigerPulse: 75%
12
|
Re: Cliffs Notes for those who don’t want to read the article:
Jun 23, 2021, 6:31 AM
|
|
Once Again Judge...well said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [78181]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 120079
Joined: 1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [22290]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 18023
Joined: 2005
|
The only answer to spending more money
Jun 23, 2021, 9:17 AM
[ in reply to Cliffs Notes for those who don’t want to read the article: ] |
|
is to generate more money. Louisville generated 40 million off 19 million spent, 2-1. We're basically 1-1. And we're adding two more women's sports for Title IX that will impact the overall budget.
Honest question, where does more spending come from? We know it won't be football, nor should it be. That is the cash cow
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [832]
TigerPulse: 89%
23
|
Re: The only answer to spending more money
Jun 23, 2021, 9:23 AM
|
|
That's one of those tough ones. If we had excitement around the program and the stands were filled, then we might have that revenue. On the other hand, if we spend an excessive amount and people still don't fill the stands and the results on the court are still the same, then we blew it. Tough call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6825]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: The only answer to spending more money
Jun 23, 2021, 9:28 AM
[ in reply to The only answer to spending more money ] |
|
I realistically can't understand how Louisville makes that type of money - unless the rent on pencil beards is just that bonkers. It must be from donor or another similar non-direct part because 20 mil in just revenue seems odd for this year. Unless it came in striped shoeboxes.
But then again, look at their football budget. They are Making 47Mil and spending 44Mil ... which I think is making a deficit in other sports.
However, what is our take in football? We spend what about the mid 50s Mill in football, take in 65ish in revenue. 10ish mill there.
Then again, donor contributions is 1/3 of our expenditures. So it isn't quite a 1:1 thing either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [22290]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 18023
Joined: 2005
|
This was for 2019-20
Jun 25, 2021, 10:06 AM
|
|
prior to Covid. It's still a monstrous profit. Then again, the schools making the larger profits are all hoop first schools, which should be expected.
Don't know what Louisville's donor base is. I know Clemson's, while generous, is considered smaller based on alumni
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [62563]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 18217
Joined: 2020
|
Re: The only answer to spending more money
Jun 23, 2021, 2:29 PM
[ in reply to The only answer to spending more money ] |
|
Yes, that's THE question. Both you and tigerdc bring up good points. It's going to be tough to fill lj on a weekday. For most, Sunday games are tough too. Not close to a metro area. We do ok on Saturday games and even mid afternoon Sunday games. Rarely enthusiasm in December. Student support? Or is ticket and merchandise just a coin bucket.
Judge could answer it. Is most of the revenue from TV? If Brad could reel in a couple of these top 100, that'd help... I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3679]
TigerPulse: 85%
35
|
Re: Cliffs Notes for those who don’t want to read the article:
Jun 23, 2021, 9:26 AM
[ in reply to Cliffs Notes for those who don’t want to read the article: ] |
|
Exactly.
The tigernet tough guys expect Clemson basketball to be consistently top 3 in the ACC, while investing the least amount of money into our program. These people should not be taken seriously. It's a complete joke.
Having a historic regular season while beating a record 8 NCAA teams wasn't enough. Only losing 2 regular season games to teams worse than us wasn't enough. We apparently have to judge the entire season on 2 games. 2 games against teams with talent that could have gone either way.
Brownell has not been perfect but he has done more with less especially in the last 4 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [10404]
TigerPulse: 100%
45
|
Re: Cliffs Notes for those who don’t want to read the article:
Jun 23, 2021, 12:04 PM
[ in reply to Cliffs Notes for those who don’t want to read the article: ] |
|
While I agree that we overachieve based on how much we spend. It doesn't change the fact that we had more talent on the floor in the first round of the ACC and NCAA tournaments. It also doesn't change that the ACC was very mediocre this past season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3679]
TigerPulse: 85%
35
|
Re: Cliffs Notes for those who don’t want to read the article:
Jun 23, 2021, 3:31 PM
|
|
I agree that we had more talent than miami. Although they had the best player on the floor in Wong.
I think the talent level was pretty even against Rutgers although they did also have the best player on the floor. Don't forget they had Houston dead to rights and Rutgers completely blew it at the end of the game. They should have been a sweet 16 team
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [50649]
TigerPulse: 79%
58
Posts: 36963
Joined: 2003
|
I don't understand why the talent discussion is limited
Jun 23, 2021, 3:40 PM
[ in reply to Re: Cliffs Notes for those who don’t want to read the article: ] |
|
to the (very few) games we lost last year where we had more talent than the other team.
What about the (many) games we won last year against teams that had more talent than we did?
Off the top of my head, we had less talent than:
Purdue
Maryland
Alabama
Florida State
NC State
Louisville
North Carolina
Syracuse
Yet we beat all of those teams.
Beating the teams above that clearly had more talent than we did accounted for HALF of our wins last year.
That's not even including wins over teams that had as much, and arguably more, talent than we did such as Georgia Tech and Pittsburgh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3679]
TigerPulse: 85%
35
|
Re: I don't understand why the talent discussion is limited
Jun 25, 2021, 10:56 AM
|
|
But that would go against their narrative so there's no time to talk about the teams we beat that had more talent than us
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [50649]
TigerPulse: 79%
58
Posts: 36963
Joined: 2003
|
So true!***
Jun 25, 2021, 1:23 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6825]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: Cliffs Notes for those who don’t want to read the article:
Jun 23, 2021, 4:54 PM
[ in reply to Re: Cliffs Notes for those who don’t want to read the article: ] |
|
First, if you bothered to watch all three Miami games, they were all fairly close games - matchups in opposing styles, however, in the ACC tourney game, Miami played much better than their prior norm. We still had a decent game, they had a better one and we missed a few opportunities. That happens in basketball.
Next Rutgers was literally a unlucky bounce on a deflected pass I think. If that went the other way, well we would have won the game. That happens on two equally match teams. Neither Rutgers or us had a great game, bit more of a grinder but both that is kinda expected as we both had very good defenses. We just got unlucky.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2846]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
Is Louisville handing out free beer or something?
Jun 24, 2021, 9:18 AM
|
|
Or charging $20 a cup? That's some serious basketball money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 21
| visibility 556
|
|
|
50
