You gotta spend money… well, because you gotta spend money.

The Knight Commission maintains a handy, dandy college sports spending database you can access (h/t Jon Solomon).  There’s plenty of interesting stuff you can glean from the Georgia page.  Start with overall spending trends related to athletes and the general student population.

TRENDS IN SPENDING AND INSTITUTIONAL FUNDING

The median amounts for academic, athletic, and football spending along with institutional funding for athletics are shown on a per capita basis for the defined years. Amounts reflect current dollars.

2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
ACADEMIC SPENDING PER FTE STUDENT+27% from 2005-2012
$8,891	$9,597	$10,064	$10,907	$11,063	$10,823	$10,980	$11,305
ATHLETIC SPENDING PER ATHLETE+98% from 2005-2012
$84,302	$115,025	$119,467	$131,615	$156,833	$149,711	$149,832	$166,524
INSTITUTIONAL FUNDING FOR ATHLETICS PER ATHLETE+7% from 2005-2012
$5,683	$5,569	$5,711	$5,619	$6,241	$6,206	$5,932	$6,075
FOOTBALL SPENDING PER SCHOLARSHIP FOOTBALL PLAYER+96% from 2005-2012
$136,223	$191,055	$178,869	$209,671	$235,174	$206,123	$259,251	$267,178

(Amounts reflect current dollars.)

Two things to note here – one, spending per football player far outstrips pending per student or per student-athlete, and the rate of that spread has increased dramatically over the period measured.  Second, it’s spending  per student/athlete/football player, not spending on student/athlete/football player being compared in that table.

For perspective, here’s what football spending per scholarship football player, minus scholarship expenses, looks like for that period:

2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA+99% from 2005-2012
$119,985	$173,710	$160,226	$188,540	$210,744	$180,778	$231,783	$239,311

That actually increased at a faster rate than overall spending per football player did.

Georgia’s doing nothing unusual there.  If you look at the comparisons, B-M is generally right in line with its Southeastern Conference peers when it comes to increasing spending rates over those eight years.  (In fact, Georgia lags the SEC median in coaching salary raises per player.)

So where else is that money going?  Well, based on outstanding debt, a lot looks to be going into improvements.

TOTAL DEBT OUTSTANDING ON ATHLETIC FACILITIES

Total athletic facilities debt balances owed by the athletics department that have not been previously paid.

2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA+58% from 2005-2012
$74,657,482	$102,332,801	$99,983,540	$97,473,033	$94,979,017	$92,408,103	$120,770,821	$118,096,570
SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE MEDIAN+76% from 2005-2012
$52,710,061	$57,706,911	$58,846,526	$73,722,043	$89,805,000	$83,915,000	$106,073,955	$92,790,000
FBS MEDIAN+93% from 2005-2012
$20,250,000	$20,139,900	$27,663,090	$26,235,236	$32,055,476	$37,825,837	$33,097,334	$39,155,000

As the next chart on that page indicates, that’s actually a slower rate of debt incurment than the school has accrued overall (+87%).  Now it’s unlikely the school and the athletic department are borrowing 100% of their improvement costs.  What we can’t tell from that information is what is being spent out-of-pocket for both, and who’s carrying what part of those tabs.

One other thing here – McGarity is spending more on debt service, considerably more, than Damon was.

ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE ON ATHLETIC FACILITIES

Payment of principal and interest on athletic facilities debt in the reporting year.

2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA+147% from 2005-2012
$3,185,357	$5,759,353	$6,048,153	$6,092,059	$6,196,205	$5,717,083	$5,463,055	$7,853,957

Before you start feeling sorry for the reserve fund, keep in mind that the 2012 figure is exactly at the conference median.

So what to take from these numbers?  Well, obviously, football is king, but that’s hardly a surprise at either Georgia or the conference it plays in.  Almost as obvious, as the money keeps rolling in to athletic departments and relatively little of it flows directly to the players, it’s still going to get spent.  Which is more than you can say for spending on the school’s side.

We have an interesting set of priorities, in other words.

Advertisement

A tale of two linemen

For John Theus and Mark Beard, it’s been the best of times and the worst of times.

Hard to say which of those applies to Georgia’s offense yet.

Maryland thinks it’s suffered enough already.

I tell you what, if Maryland had put as much effort into managing the financial affairs of its athletic department as it is fighting the ACC’s attempt to collect a $52 million exit payment following its announced departure to the Big Ten, the Terps may never have felt the pressure to leave in the first place.  It’s served a number of its former peers (North Carolina, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Duke, North Carolina State, Clemson, Notre Dame, Syracuse and Virginia) with subpoenas.  It’s also hit the conference with a demand about… scheduling.

Maryland has also requested documents connected to the formation of the Maryland men’s basketball team’s 2013-14 ACC schedule. For the first time since the league was founded, the Terps did not host Duke or North Carolina in College Park. At the league media day in Charlotte, ACC Commissioner John Swofford was asked how a scheduling quirk like that comes about and whether it was connected to Maryland’s pending departure.

“Through the regular scheduling process,” Swofford said then. “That’s not particularly unusual. The great thing we have in this league right now, when you look at the quality of programs, you can’t have a bad home schedule. You’re going to have quality teams and quality brands coming in wherever you are. Obviously one of the things you lose when you get bigger is some people don’t play each other as much. That’s just part of the growth.”

Mike Slive nods in agreement.

Give ’em credit for being persistent buggers.

According to a motion to stay discovery filed by the ACC on March 4, Maryland served the ACC 94 document requests covering a time span of 12 years in late December. Shortly thereafter, the court filing says, Maryland began serving subpoenas to the ACC schools and eight third-party media entities and subpoenas are currently pending with at least 19 separate entities seeking more than 35 categories of documents from each.

In the example subpoenas filed to Duke and North Carolina State, 47 categories of documents are requested, ranging from documents related to the ACC’s constitution to media talking points after Maryland announced its departure to the evaluation of possible new members.

Third-party media entities?  Not Disney!  Well, yes, now that you mention it.

In addition, Maryland has served subpoenas to ESPN, consistent with its allegation that the television network coaxed the ACC into trying to lure Big Ten schools away.

I assume the irony isn’t escaping anyone there.

The opposite of the Johnson Doctrine is…

Straight from the lips of the latest commitment to Georgia’s class of 2015, DT Justin Young of Grayson:

“Georgia coaches wanted me to go around and look at another schools before I committed,” Young said. “That was another reason why I liked Georgia. They gave me the opportunity to go see other colleges. Some of these schools, they’ll take their offer away if you look around anywhere. I was like ‘Wow. Georgia might be the one.’ And that’s probably why I made the commitment today.”

For a kid with options, rocket science it ain’t.