USF Scheduling Philosophy and TSA Lease

[puc86]

54 minutes ago, NAS Gone to Paradise said:

Our plan is a blue print for the demise of USF Athletics.   Default and the state would shut down the program, lock, stock, and barrel.

Not if the bank in need of a tenant doesn't let them

[Ned A Starr RIP]

1 hour ago, NAS Gone to Paradise said:

Our plan is a blue print for the demise of USF Athletics.   Default and the state would shut down the program, lock, stock, and barrel.

Correction. Your plan, not our plan.

Edited May 24, 2019 by NAS Gone to Paradise

[I like GOOOOLD (and green)]

21 hours ago, BullyPulpit said:

The larger point of my post is to provide perspective. UCF needs to schedule 7 home games a season to cover the debt service on their rusty, crap-hole, at least for the next 19 years. They would actually lose money if they took a payday game, as they generate more than $750,000 in net revenues from their average home game. The cost of the debt service on their initial 30 year bonds is $4 million annually (Those bonds will be paid off in about 18 years). The total cost for us to "rent" Ray Jay per year averages out to around $1,600,000 (assuming we don't open the upper deck). That is our "all-in" cost. UCF still has to pay for staff, security, EMS, upkeep, utilities, insurance, etc. They are able to cover that, but that requires the revenue generated by parking and concessions. In 2037, things will change dramatically. They will be in a much better position than we currently are, as they will essentially own their crappy stadium and will be generating an extra $4 million in revenue by the simple fact that they won't have any more debt to service (assuming they don't incur any more stadium construction related debt). The issue for USF is that the debt service on the type of stadium they were proposing a year and a half ago would be about 4 times what UCF's currently is. I don't know how the program will be able to service a $16 million debt, but I brought that up in another post not too long ago and won't bore anyone else with those thoughts/details here. 

I don't think they 'need' 7 games. Your math is a little off for them according to Forbes; in 2017 their net football-only revenue was 21.9 million.  If you want to just count tickets and game day contributions (concessions, premium seating, etc) it was 3.3 and 6.6 million, respectively.  They had just 6 regular season home games that season, obviously 7 reg season home games plus post season would be higher.  Therefore, they are earning at a minimum over 1.3 million per game just from tickets and add ons in 2017, it's probably significantly higher.  3 games is all they 'need' to break even on their rust bucket.  In 2017 they were not getting nearly the ticket draws or contributions they are now I imagine.  Their total football expenses that included everything from traveling to recruiting to debt service to coaching salaries was 18.1 million in 2017.  It appears that even in 2017 their FB department was profiting 3.2 million after all expenses.  

I personally agree with both USF's and UCF's scheduling philosophies.  They both seem to be working.

[I like GOOOOLD (and green)]

Sorry for the double post, won't let me edit.  I believe that their improvements have been funded through private contributions from donors, I don't expect additional debt accumulation unless they do an overhaul/expansion, which supposedly is in their sights.  

Short story long, their scheduling philosophy fits what they're trying to do while ours fits what we're trying to do.  I think the Bama series is on a different level.  Anyone outside of the SEC would take a true 2 for 1 with Bama.  I don't see it making sense for the other guys to do 2 for 1 with Miami or Fl though unless it was 1-1-1.  Bama would never go to the other guys stadium so there's no reasonable way to expect those two to play.  This is one of the few advantages of playing in Ray Jay, you will score games that the rust bucket won't get.  

[NewEnglandBull]

2 hours ago, BullyPulpit said:

The issue is that every year that goes by is another year where the projected cost of an OCS increases. The bonds on such a $220 million stadium would require $16 million in annual payments for 30 years. Given the TV contract, we wouldn't be able to pay that amount. Additionally, the flexibility to do 2 for 1's like we have seen against marquee programs goes out the window, as we would need the revenue from 7 home games per season to have any chance of being able to pay back the construction bonds. I highly doubt that a few big-name donors are going to step up to help pay the cost of a stadium, as we cannot even raise $20 million to build an IPF. If we issued bonds to pay for the other half of the IPF/Athletic Center, that will cost us about $1.5 million a year for 30 years to pay it off. 

I really don't see a viable option for USF to even attempt to build a stadium without a change of conference into the P5 or Jeff Vinik deciding that it is in his best interests to somehow help USF construct a stadium. Maybe give him naming rights to a college, a statute, and some legacy like naming it Jeff Vinik Field or something like that. Outside one of those two scenarios, I think we are Ray Jay for life. 

Excellent analysis. You are right when we get the green light that we are moving to a P5 then it will be built. Unfortunately that will not be occurring in our lifetimes so better get use to RayJay...

[BullyPulpit]

2 hours ago, I like GOOOOLD (and green) said:

I don't think they 'need' 7 games. Your math is a little off for them according to Forbes; in 2017 their net football-only revenue was 21.9 million.  If you want to just count tickets and game day contributions (concessions, premium seating, etc) it was 3.3 and 6.6 million, respectively.  They had just 6 regular season home games that season, obviously 7 reg season home games plus post season would be higher.  Therefore, they are earning at a minimum over 1.3 million per game just from tickets and add ons in 2017, it's probably significantly higher.  3 games is all they 'need' to break even on their rust bucket.  In 2017 they were not getting nearly the ticket draws or contributions they are now I imagine.  Their total football expenses that included everything from traveling to recruiting to debt service to coaching salaries was 18.1 million in 2017.  It appears that even in 2017 their FB department was profiting 3.2 million after all expenses.  

I personally agree with both USF's and UCF's scheduling philosophies.  They both seem to be working.

You are forgetting overhead to run the stadium. They only seat 44,000. 12,000 of those are students. That means 32,000 revenue generating seats. If you count the donation required for certain seats they are making more, but so is USF as well.

Looking at pure ticket sales, at $30 per ticket they gross right around $1 million in ticket sales for a given game. That doesn't include overhead. The $4 million is just their debt service, so it doesn't include the cost of attendants, security, police, utilities, upkeep, etc. Trust me, they need 7 games in an average season to break even. You also have to keep in mind that they payout for an FCS foe and have to cover visiting team travel expenses. They didn't start packing the venue until this past season. A couple of down years and they will see their numbers dwindle. 

[Grateful Dad]

When the Bucs decide that they need a new stadium, the pirate ship goes and the U goes up.  Thank God we got rid of "Prancer"

[Triple B]

1 hour ago, Grateful Dad said:

When the Bucs decide that they need a new stadium, the pirate ship goes and the U goes up.  Thank God we got rid of "Prancer"

The would have gone up whether we got rid of Prancer or not ..

[Grateful Dad]

Up there, yeah.  But think of how many academic logos you can see at the game in terms of banners, academic USF shirts, Jumbotron ads, etc.  There would have been a prancer at everyone of those.

[NewEnglandBull]

What is prancer?