|
Replies: 31
| visibility 1
|
Amateur [31]
TigerPulse: 31%
Posts: 88
Joined: 10/21/01
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Medallion [56841]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39635
Joined: 11/12/04
|
what subsidy?***
May 8, 2013, 4:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3521]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3859
Joined: 5/14/01
|
IPTAY****
May 8, 2013, 4:19 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56841]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39635
Joined: 11/12/04
|
VaTech much have a heck of a Gobbler Club.***
May 8, 2013, 4:34 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4947]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6980
Joined: 10/12/06
|
Re: what subsidy?***
May 8, 2013, 4:33 PM
[ in reply to what subsidy?*** ] |
|
Subsidy is the % of revenue created by school funds and student fees. Nothing to do with fundraising.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [806]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 1661
Joined: 8/27/99
|
Re: what subsidy?***
May 9, 2013, 12:55 PM
[ in reply to what subsidy?*** ] |
|
In other words, does the athletic department pay its own way, or does the school have to chip in to help out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19352]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 22266
Joined: 4/25/04
|
Re: Updated USA Today athletic department revenues #s are out...
May 8, 2013, 4:04 PM
|
|
Looks like the Gamecocks are still posting on Tnet as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [31]
TigerPulse: 31%
Posts: 88
Joined: 10/21/01
|
Re: Re: Updated USA Today athletic department revenues #s are out...
May 8, 2013, 4:22 PM
|
|
Not a gamecock, pragmatic but proud tiger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4947]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6980
Joined: 10/12/06
|
Re: Re: Updated USA Today athletic department revenues #s are out...
May 8, 2013, 4:30 PM
|
|
Did you noticed we closed the gap by 5 million and still didn't report all of our IPTAY funds?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [31]
TigerPulse: 31%
Posts: 88
Joined: 10/21/01
|
Re: Re: Updated USA Today athletic department revenues #s are out...
May 8, 2013, 4:38 PM
|
|
I did, would be nice to see at true #.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10763
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Re: Re: Updated USA Today athletic department revenues #s are out...
May 8, 2013, 6:02 PM
|
|
Add $20 million to our gross and you are as close as you are going to get without being a forensic accountant. Shaking the South land has detailed examinations of our 2007-2012 fiscal years available. We have been dialed in at $20 million for four seasons now and are sitting on a sizable cash reserve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [39]
TigerPulse: 19%
Posts: 138
Joined: 5/9/12
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated USA Today athletic department revenues #s are out...
May 8, 2013, 6:28 PM
|
|
You wouldn't add $20 million more like $3 million. Of the $20 million IPTAY received $17 million went to the athletic department which shows up under the USA Today link as contributions. So South Carolina received $88 million and Clemson about $73 million all in. Dr B does a pretty good job of explaining it here.
http://www.shakinthesouthland.com/2013/3/28/4092422/iptay-finances-and-cuad-budget-fy12
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10763
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated USA Today athletic department revenues #s are out...
May 8, 2013, 8:33 PM
|
|
That's still very misleading and why I think you'd be hard pressed as an accountant to make heads or tails of these figures for one school - much less compare two programs with non-mandatory reporting standards.
If you read the article the IPTAY funds represented in the CUAD revenue for FY12 are for expenditures. IPTAY got off its butt and finally spent some cash reserve. It is confusing because it is so close to the amount of the actual annual contributions. But the previous years CUAD only showed $2.8M of $20M in IPTAY funds In total revenue. According to the reports from USAToday we had total revenues of $61M in FY11 - but we know we can add to that approximately $17M in IPTAY revenue not reported by the CUAD - for total revenues of around $78M. And those numbers are fairly well in line with the available data of the previous 4-5 years. This years the first we see a large contribution of IPTAY in the CUAD. So, if we're going to take this article at face value and say that Clemson only had roughly $70M (I think you conceded around $73M).for FY12 are we to believe that Clemson's total sports related revenue for FY12 actually shrank from FY11? FY12 included an ACC Championship and a BCS bowl - reimbursements from these events alone should push the budget ahead of FY11 - all things being equal. I continue to believe these numbers aren't meant for public consumption or scrutiny.
As a final note - if you actual add the numbers in the contributions row the final total isn't even right. So these numbers are pretty useless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [39]
TigerPulse: 19%
Posts: 138
Joined: 5/9/12
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated USA Today athletic department revenues #s are out...
May 8, 2013, 9:08 PM
|
|
You're double dipping. Look under the "contributions" section for Clemson on the USA today article. This is the amount ($16.7 mill) that IPTAY contributed to the AD. That's $16.7 out of the $20 mill in total contributions(per Dr B) IPTAY received for FYE 2012. So you can add an additional 3 million to the 70 mill for a total of $73 mill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10763
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated USA Today athletic department revenues #s are out...
May 8, 2013, 9:23 PM
|
|
I already typed a long response that my ipad ate up.
This is from drb's numbers, integral to your point:
Revenue Item Football Basketball Other Sports Non-Specific IPTAY Total FY11 Total FY12
Contributions 2,500,753 58,575 79,776 579,458 19,175,374 14,171,734 19,990,118
Please try to explain how those numbers add up? If not, then the whole thing is bunk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [39]
TigerPulse: 19%
Posts: 138
Joined: 5/9/12
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated USA Today athletic department revenues #s are out...
May 8, 2013, 9:32 PM
|
|
That's a 2012 chart, the "total FY11" column is for comparison. Add everything but that column and the #s match perfectly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10763
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated USA Today athletic department revenues #s are out...
May 8, 2013, 9:57 PM
|
|
I'm sorry this material is beyond you. I wasn't adding the $14M from FY11. Please add $2.5M (Football contributions) + $19.175M (Iptay Contributions). Now tell me where you got a math degree that says this equals $19.9M? You've only furthered my point that people who don't understand accounting should not be concerning themselves with these numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [881]
TigerPulse: 57%
Posts: 2125
Joined: 2/3/12
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aficionado [158]
TigerPulse: 58%
Posts: 729
Joined: 10/11/10
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated USA Today athletic department revenues #s are out...
May 9, 2013, 3:22 PM
|
|
SC doesn't channel big donations through the Gamecock Club, whereas I think Clemson does. For instance w/ the Dodie lady gave $12m for the academic center, it counts for contributions but not Gamecock Club. Also, SC has seat licensing, which may count as contributions rather than ticket sales.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16186]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8524
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Updated USA Today athletic department revenues #s are out...
May 8, 2013, 9:36 PM
|
|
These numbers are interesting, but I think it is very hard to compare school A to school B with much confidence.
But simply looking at the Clemson/Iptay reported numbers for Clemson is compelling to me. Clemson ticket sales and Iptay Contributions are easily the lions share of revenue for Clemson sports. This means the Clemson fan base, the folks who buy season tickets and who contribute to IPTAY are the engine that drives the sports machine at Clemson. TV money, revenue sharing, ACC distributions are significantly smaller than the roughly $40M that the Clemson ticket buying fan base puts on the table.
I'd hope the powers that be keep in mind who it is that pays the bills. The ticket buying IPTAY contributors should be the constituency of first rank in all decision making issues. If that constituency fades away, the enterprise collapses.
Harley
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [806]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 1661
Joined: 8/27/99
|
This is a fact that was forgotten under Bobby Robinson.
May 9, 2013, 1:09 PM
|
|
And it is one of the reasons Clemson football fell into irrelevance nationally for so long. Winnig = more fans. More fans = more $. More $ gives you a better chance to win. This is not rocket science. Still, the administration at Clemson has not always had the commitment to winning, or to the fan base that we would like to see. Robinson once said that as long as Clemson regularly went to a bowl game and won the ACC once in a while, Death Valley would remain full. That kind of thinking has got to be defeated. Nothing less than excellence should be the standard at Clemson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aficionado [158]
TigerPulse: 58%
Posts: 729
Joined: 10/11/10
|
Re: This is a fact that was forgotten under Bobby Robinson.
May 9, 2013, 3:38 PM
|
|
Clemson is in the ballpark w/ ticket sales $, but the big separator seems to be "other", which i'm guessing is conference $$$.
but what is interesting is that Clemson spends more for scholarship than SC, but SC fields more teams, thus has more athletes on scholarships. therefore, i'm guessing that Clemson recruits more out-of-state athletes, which costs significantly more for the scholarship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10763
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: This is a fact that was forgotten under Bobby Robinson.
May 9, 2013, 6:56 PM
|
|
Clemson tuition is significantly more, even in-state - than South Carolina. This is a reason for the difference and also another factor making it easier for you to recruit in-state in the partial scholarship sports. It costs a family a heck of a lot less to send their son to play baseball at USC on a 1/3 scholarship than to Clemson on a 1/3 scholarship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [881]
TigerPulse: 57%
Posts: 2125
Joined: 2/3/12
|
Re: This is a fact that was forgotten under Bobby Robinson.
May 10, 2013, 12:13 AM
[ in reply to Re: This is a fact that was forgotten under Bobby Robinson. ] |
|
Clemson's tuition is more than SCarolina's. Around 2k per year in-state and more for out-of-state. But it's a more in-demand school due to the lower level of d-baggery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2609]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6653
Joined: 9/1/11
|
SCar thanks you Alabama and LSU and UGa...***
May 9, 2013, 2:47 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [39]
TigerPulse: 19%
Posts: 138
Joined: 5/9/12
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10763
Joined: 1/25/07
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aficionado [158]
TigerPulse: 58%
Posts: 729
Joined: 10/11/10
|
Re: Re: This is a fact that was forgotten under Bobby Robinson.
May 10, 2013, 8:46 AM
|
|
the difference is scholarship expenses is a little more than $2m, which is much more than the $2.6k difference in in-state tuition, especially considering that SC has more student athletes on scholarship because they field more sports. therefore, Clemson is recruiting a lot of out-of-state athletes (as compared to SC)... it may not be for football or baseball, but maybe tennis, track, golf, etc.... i not trying to make a policy point, just noting an interesting tidbit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10763
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Re: This is a fact that was forgotten under Bobby Robinson.
May 10, 2013, 9:54 AM
|
|
I was just pointing out it would be a contributing factor then the other poster argued that the costs of the two schools was virtually identical - which is obviously untrue. Football and basketball would cost Clemson approximately $250000 more a year in scholarships than South Carolina. I have no idea how non-scholarships sports could make up another $1.75 mill difference since we actually field less sports than them. The out of state argument doesn't hold much water since the difference in cost between the two schools is about the same in-state or out. The numbers on both websites are approximate - Clemson may be bilking IPTAY for a higher rate of room and board for scholarship athletes. Who knows. The setup costs for training table, at least according to the Shaking the Southland, came out of another column - paid for by a transfer from a reserve fund. But that probably doesn't include the costs of meals themselves. That might greatly inflate the meal costs for the student athlete.
But, as I referenced above, the basic arithmetic in some of the columns in the Shaking the Southland article don't add up. So you probably shouldn't put too much credence in it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [881]
TigerPulse: 57%
Posts: 2125
Joined: 2/3/12
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [39]
TigerPulse: 19%
Posts: 138
Joined: 5/9/12
|
Re: Re: Re: This is a fact that was forgotten under Bobby Robinson.
May 10, 2013, 6:31 AM
|
|
Ha! I'll informed? This from the guy who said "just add $20 million to Clemson's gross revenues" I'm sorry you don't understand off setting debits and credits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10763
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Re: Re: This is a fact that was forgotten under Bobby Robinson.
May 10, 2013, 6:37 AM
|
|
This from the guy who can't properly follow a thread or add properly. I see you conveniently ignored the reply that proved your basic arithmetic skills faulty. I'll give you credit for one thing - you certainly aren't afraid to play to the stereotype of an ignorant Carolina fan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 31
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
