Air Dumbo

[RashCock]

Clemson wants new jet to recruit athletes
BY ANDREW SHAIN

ASHAIN@THESTATE.COM

04/21/2015 7:56 PM

Elite college programs are taking to the skies in their race to win top recruits.

Clemson University’s athletics program is asking a legislative bond panel Wednesday for permission to buy a jet costing from $3.5 million to $6 million.

The new jet will allow Clemson coaches to fly farther and faster than the turboprop airplane the Tigers already own.

“People say, ‘Look at the price of the plane,’ and I say, ‘Look at what we’re paying coaches,’ ” said House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Brian White, an Anderson Republican who sits on the Joint Bond Review Committee, which will review the request. “It’s the times.”

No taxpayer dollars will be used to buy or operate the used Citation CJ2+ jet, according to data the school gave the bond committee.

The school’s booster club has set aside money for the purchase.

The air war is a new battleground for top colleges vying to attract coaches who, in turn, try to lure top athletes, said Brad Humphreys, a sports economics professor at West Virginia University.

“For coaches, it’s how well and how fast they can travel,” he said. “A lot of universities are soliciting funds for this. It’s just like having a better weight room.”

The University of South Carolina owns two turboprop planes – one used by administrators, the other used by its athletics department.

Clemson needs the jet because of increasing demand for its 1998 King C90-B turboprop plane and the “unpredictable nature of recruiting schedules,” the school said in its filing to the review committee.

The university has paid to charter private flights when its other school-owned plane is in use. The school spent $278,000 on charter flights last year.

Athletics department officials, including director Dan Radakovich and football coach Dabo Swinney, also use one of two state-owned airplanes for travel.

But that use has spawned controversy.

Last year, lawmakers passed a ban on the use of state planes for player recruiting. However, lawmakers are looking to reverse that ban this year.

Clemson had two planes until selling an older one in 2011.

The Tigers’ athletics booster club, IPTAY, has set aside $4.5 million to buy the new jet.

If the eight-passenger jet costs more, IPTAY could contribute more money or Clemson could use athletic department revenue, the school said in documents provided to the bond committee.

The additional $709,415 in annual costs for the jet’s pilots, insurance, fuel and maintenance costs would come from athletic revenues, the school said.

Clemson is looking for a used Citation jet that’s no more than nine years old. The average price for those jets has been $4.7 million in recent months.

The school did not want to comment ahead of Wednesday’s committee meeting.

Even though no taxpayer money will be used to buy Clemson’s jet, state law requires any state plane purchase go through the bond committee and S.C. State Budget and Control Board.

The jet is part of Clemson athletics program improvements designed to draw top players, win titles and gain publicity that results in more student applications, White said.

Clemson has undertaken a number of athletics projects over the past year, including a $64 million renovation of Littlejohn Coliseum and building a $62 million football operations facility.

USC also has gone on an athletics building spree in recent years, including new football practice fields, a video scoreboard and an academic center.

The new construction can help on the field.

USC won the College World Series the year after the Gamecocks opened a new $36 million baseball stadium in 2009, White noted.

“This all helps the visibility of the universities,” he said, “and brings in quality students who want to come to watch (major conference) sports.”


Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/politi...s/the-buzz/article19183209.html#storylink=cpy

 

[LegalTiger]

Thanks for posting, I am guessing it is a rubber stamp approval process. It is interesting that plane purchases, specifically, are subject to State Budget and Control Board oversight.

Very nice jet though....

 

[USCRBCOCK]

Good Lawd.....they'll paint the darned thing highway-cone orange or stick some awful stripes aka their band uniforms on it. Will undoubtedly end up the tackiest plane in the sky.

 

[Cutlass275]

I think if the vote comes down they're allowed to have a jet, it should be law that it must add this little caveat... I can deal with this!

 

[Cackdiesel]

Thanks for posting, I am guessing it is a rubber stamp approval process. It is interesting that plane purchases, specifically, are subject to State Budget and Control Board oversight.

Very nice jet though....

It's ridiculous.

 

[gamecock_07]

It's ridiculous.

I dunno, a 5 million dollar down payment and 750k in operations a year for the next 20 years would pay for about 50 kids a year to go to school for free, so there is that too. I dont have a problem with a State entity trying to keep academic institutions in line with what their real purpose should be.

 

[Cackdiesel]

I dunno, a 5 million dollar down payment and 750k in operations a year for the next 20 years would pay for about 50 kids a year to go to school for free, so there is that too. I dont have a problem with a State entity trying to keep academic institutions in line with what their real purpose should be.

I'd ordinarily agree, but the state doesn't try to keep academic institutions in line now. The athletic facilities spending is out of control. The main thing though is it's not state money.

 

[coloradogamecock#]

Cackdiesel, I was wondering if anyone else picked up on that.
So, currently, they can rent planes for $278,000/year. They think it's a better idea to pay $4,500,000 up front and then pay $710,000/year in operations.
$710,000-$278,000 = $432,000 increase every single year over their current costs. Half a million dollars unnecessarily blown every year.

ALSO, I read that article twice trying to find the criticism that SURELY the newspaper would have of such waste. Not a damn sentence of criticism. In fact, the closest thing was "...lawmakers passed a ban on the use of state planes for player recruiting.", but then immediately follows with "However, lawmakers are looking to reverse that ban this year." Really? Pretty much the same lawmakers that pushed to get it last year now want it?? Thank you, Mr. Newspaper guy, for that completely made up defense of Clemson.

Additionally, Andrew uses USC to defend, DEFEND, Clemson. As if USC creating a new stadium is the same as Dabo and Radakovich having their own plane. Sorry State, but upgrading facilities is NOT the same as having a personal luxury for a coach and AD.

Switch USC and Clemson in this article (I like to use that comparison often), and see if that story would get past the State's editors. Sorry, wouldn't happen.

Owning planes is a STUPID idea. Lease them when needed.

 

[Cackdiesel]

Cackdiesel, I was wondering if anyone else picked up on that.
So, currently, they can rent planes for $278,000/year. They think it's a better idea to pay $4,500,000 up front and then pay $710,000/year in operations.
$710,000-$278,000 = $432,000 increase every single year over their current costs. Half a million dollars unnecessarily blown every year.

ALSO, I read that article twice trying to find the criticism that SURELY the newspaper would have of such waste. Not a damn sentence of criticism. In fact, the closest thing was "...lawmakers passed a ban on the use of state planes for player recruiting.", but then immediately follows with "However, lawmakers are looking to reverse that ban this year." Really? Pretty much the same lawmakers that pushed to get it last year now want it?? Thank you, Mr. Newspaper guy, for that completely made up defense of Clemson.

Additionally, Andrew uses USC to defend, DEFEND, Clemson. As if USC creating a new stadium is the same as Dabo and Radakovich having their own plane. Sorry State, but upgrading facilities is NOT the same as having a personal luxury for a coach and AD.

Switch USC and Clemson in this article (I like to use that comparison often), and see if that story would get past the State's editors. Sorry, wouldn't happen.

Owning planes is a STUPID idea. Lease them when needed.

Here's the thing, though. It's not the state's money. The state doesn't need to be approving the spending of money that is not their's. It doesn't matter if it's a stupid idea or not. The money presumably came from donors.

 

[gamecock_07]

I'd ordinarily agree, but the state doesn't try to keep academic institutions in line now. The athletic facilities spending is out of control. The main thing though is it's not state money.

but state money goes to the school too. why should the state give money for education if they can afford additional luxuries like a new expensive jet that 3/4 of a million dollars to operate.

I know that's not exactly how it works but think there's enough justification for an oversight level, which is what this is.

 

[NaturalGC7]

Pickens math is like no other. Rubber stamped because no one can understand the submittal, especially the part that says it will aid in "winning more titles."

 

[Cocky kebo57]

No matter the rationality, feasibility, or sensibility of the issue, clemmons will pull enough strings and grease enough palms to get that jet. They probably see this is as their way of keeping up with the SEC schools, or getting a leg up on USC specifically.

But I agree with the other poster, just lease or charter a jet because it's just so much more of an economical way to get around. Just because you CAN afford it doesn't always make it the right thing to do.

 

[gamecock_07]

Here's the thing, though. It's not the state's money. The state doesn't need to be approving the spending of money that is not their's. It doesn't matter if it's a stupid idea or not. The money presumably came from donors.

I disagree. It 'sorta' is. The State is giving Clemson about 100 million dollars per year which is roughly 10% of their operating budget which I think entitles them to have a say in where Clemson decides to spend their 'extra' money, even if it is from donors. Is the State going to balk at this jet purchase, who knows, I wouldn't think so since its not that expensive in the grand scheme of big business colleges, but still, I think it's their right to give the thumbs up or down based on the support all you tax payers are providing them.

 

[LegalTiger]

It's pretty funny how the fan-tinted lenses work. This board was outraged when Clemson was leasing one of the State planes and is now outraged when it buys one insisting it should lease one instead. Do you feel S. Car should sell its two planes and start leasing as well?

And to whomever questioned that lawmakers are considering repealing the restrictions on colleges leasing the state plane should read the House's Budget Proposal which includes a repeal of the restriction.

 

[gamecock_07]

It's pretty funny how the fan-tinted lenses work. This board was outraged when Clemson was leasing one of the State planes and is now outraged when it buys one insisting it should lease one instead. Do you feel S. Car should sell its two planes and start leasing as well?

And to whomever questioned that lawmakers are considering repealing the restrictions on colleges leasing the state plane should read the House's Budget Proposal which includes a repeal of the restriction.

who's outraged? I see some folks calling it over the top and unnecessary, which is pretty standard for everything clemson.

 

[Clevercock3]

Here's the thing, though. It's not the state's money. The state doesn't need to be approving the spending of money that is not their's. It doesn't matter if it's a stupid idea or not. The money presumably came from donors.

And should they or any other school go the way of SC STATE you would then have another opinion I suppose.....

They clearly do and should have some oversight in what goes on.......With that said I will say this on the idea....

Usually someone wishing to own a plane is more of an ego thing....The reason for that analysis is that if you look at the cost of ownership vs that of leasing it's a no-brainer.......

This is clearly an idea by Dabo to look more credible as you pull up at the airport and park beside the dozens of turbo props from other schools.....They (schools) know the turbo props are more efficient and cost effective but Dabo wants the recruits to think in other terms.....

Look who has the money!!!! Sadly the culture of today's youth will fall for the smoke screen presented by Dabo and Co...

 

[Cackdiesel]

I disagree. It 'sorta' is. The State is giving Clemson about 100 million dollars per year which is roughly 10% of their operating budget which I think entitles them to have a say in where Clemson decides to spend their 'extra' money, even if it is from donors. Is the State going to balk at this jet purchase, who knows, I wouldn't think so since its not that expensive in the grand scheme of big business colleges, but still, I think it's their right to give the thumbs up or down based on the support all you tax payers are providing them.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not some big donor, but you can bet that if I was, no entity would get a penny of my money if the state could just swoop in and direct how it's spent. The state sees enough of my money in taxes. They don't get to also spend my donations. The quickest way for donations to dry up is to let the state control the money.

 

[Clevercock3]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not some big donor, but you can bet that if I was, no entity would get a penny of my money if the state could just swoop in and direct how it's spent. The state sees enough of my money in taxes. They don't get to also spend my donations. The quickest way for donations to dry up is to let the state control the money.

I will take a crack at this.....Suppose I were a big donor and wanted to donate paint to paint all of the exteriors of the buildings owned by USC.....

However the paint I wish to donate is all ORANGE......USC administrators don't care....they just want the buildings painted.......

Would you like for the state to oversee my donation and make a decision?

 

[Cackdiesel]

I will take a crack at this.....Suppose I were a big donor and wanted to donate paint to paint all of the exteriors of the buildings owned by USC.....

However the paint I wish to donate is all ORANGE......USC administrators don't care....they just want the buildings painted.......

Would you like for the state to oversee my donation and make a decision?

No. But after seeing how the administrators spent your money, I would be less inclined to donate my money.

The money in college foundation accounts is spent for all kinds of things that state money can't be used for (alcohol, travel, etc.).

 

[gamecock_07]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not some big donor, but you can bet that if I was, no entity would get a penny of my money if the state could just swoop in and direct how it's spent. The state sees enough of my money in taxes. They don't get to also spend my donations. The quickest way for donations to dry up is to let the state control the money.

I'm assuming that an oversight committee isn't looking to have that much influence in where the money is spent, they are there to monitor and make sure there are no egregious allocation of funds.

If I'm the state and I'm giving someone (in this case Clemson) 100 million dollars of year and they are still clamoring that they need more or can't live without this 100 million, but at the same time they are dropping 6 million and then another million a year on a plane to fly a football coach around, well I probably have a problem with that.

What you seem to think is that the athletics department is it's own separate privately funded entity, which isnt the case. We're still talking about public money that goes to pay for these athletes education, dorms, infrastructure etc, so having oversight of the entire schools spending is a necessity.

If Clemson were completely private and didnt receive state money, I would agree that the State oversight committee would be ridiculous.

 

[Cackdiesel]

I'm assuming that an oversight committee isn't looking to have that much influence in where the money is spent, they are there to monitor and make sure there are no egregious allocation of funds.

If I'm the state and I'm giving someone (in this case Clemson) 100 million dollars of year and they are still clamoring that they need more or can't live without this 100 million, but at the same time they are dropping 6 million and then another million a year on a plane to fly a football coach around, well I probably have a problem with that.

What you seem to think is that the athletics department is it's own separate privately funded entity, which isnt the case. We're still talking about public money that goes to pay for these athletes education, dorms, infrastructure etc, so having oversight of the entire schools spending is a necessity.

If Clemson were completely private and didnt receive state money, I would agree that the State oversight committee would be ridiculous.

You're not completely right about this. Yes, athletics is a part of the university. But Clemson, like all schools of this size, also uses a seperate organization (IPTAY in their case) to fund things that state money isn't allowed for. That's how we pay our coaches so much. Look up Steve Spurrier's salary for instance. The state database says he makes $350k a year. We all know it's a lot more than that. It's because he's also paid from a fund that isn't administered by the state. It's a seperate non-profit (not state) entity. It is its own seperately funded entity and it is not public money. Also, that money is not used to pay for the athletes education. The athletes education is paid for with public funds. But certain extras, like planes and additional salaries are paid for with seperate funds. Every school with any size has a fund like this for athletics.

Quick edit: Dabo's salary is listed as $257,397 per year by the state. That is what the state pays him and that is what his state retirement will be based on. He makes well over that amount and it is funded by non-state money.

 

[northGAcock]

Where will they put the IPTAY sticker? There is no back bumper!

 

[gamecock_07]

You're not completely right about this. Yes, athletics is a part of the university. But Clemson, like all schools of this size, also uses a seperate organization (IPTAY in their case) to fund things that state money isn't allowed for. That's how we pay our coaches so much. Look up Steve Spurrier's salary for instance. The state database says he makes $350k a year. We all know it's a lot more than that. It's because he's also paid from a fund that isn't administered by the state. It's a seperate non-profit (not state) entity. It is its own seperately funded entity and it is not public money. Also, that money is not used to pay for the athletes education. The athletes education is paid for with public funds. But certain extras, like planes and additional salaries are paid for with seperate funds. Every school with any size has a fund like this for athletics.

Quick edit: Dabo's salary is listed as $257,397 per year by the state. That is what the state pays him and that is what his state retirement will be based on. He makes well over that amount and it is funded by non-state money.

I admittedly do not know the in's and out's of the budgets and what money goes where but there is obviously enough overlap in pieces of the academic and athletic worlds to merit oversight. The athletic department, whether it be the coaches salaries, the buildings they work in, cars they drive, planes they fly, or whatever they do, is partially funded by the state. So in my opinion, any dime that they spend should have the global approval from the stakeholders, both public and private. Which is probably why this oversight committee was established. If they dont want that, they can go completely private and not accept public money as an institution.

 

[Cackdiesel]

I admittedly do not know the in's and out's of the budgets and what money goes where but there is obviously enough overlap in pieces of the academic and athletic worlds to merit oversight. The athletic department, whether it be the coaches salaries, the buildings they work in, cars they drive, planes they fly, or whatever they do, is partially funded by the state. So in my opinion, any dime that they spend should have the global approval from the stakeholders, both public and private. Which is probably why this oversight committee was established. If they dont want that, they can go completely private and not accept public money as an institution.

Which is why I said we'll have to agree to disagree. I wasn't trying to argue with you. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I just don't agree with you, for a variety of reasons, many which haven't been discussed and aren't worth discussing.

 

[SHillTIger]

his is clearly an idea by Dabo to look more credible as you pull up at the airport and park beside the dozens of turbo props from other schools.....They (schools) know the turbo props are more efficient and cost effective but Dabo wants the recruits to think in other terms.....

I am not sure this is entirely true. I believe the turbo prop that USC owns is a Beechcraft king air 350. The planes are similar in price new(6.3 mil for jet, 6.1 for turbo prop). The fuel cost is about .40 cents per mile cheaper on the turbo prop. Almost all the passenger stuff is the same as far as what they can carry. The turbo prop has a about 150 mile longer range but the jet has a higher cruise speed(360 mph vs 478 mph). From what I read the yearly cost of the jet is about 100k more a year and in the grand scheme of these two schools budgets that is not a lot of difference. In the end it would seem like a wash to me.

 

[Cackdiesel]

I am not sure this is entirely true. I believe the turbo prop that USC owns is a Beechcraft king air 350. The planes are similar in price new(6.3 mil for jet, 6.1 for turbo prop). The fuel cost is about .40 cents per mile cheaper on the turbo prop. Almost all the passenger stuff is the same as far as what they can carry. The turbo prop has a about 150 mile longer range but the jet has a higher cruise speed(360 mph vs 478 mph). From what I read the yearly cost of the jet is about 100k more a year and in the grand scheme of these two schools budgets that is not a lot of difference. In the end it would seem like a wash to me.

My guess is that yours will be used more than ours, so the gas price will be a lot higher than ours.

 

[Clevercock3]

I am not sure this is entirely true. I believe the turbo prop that USC owns is a Beechcraft king air 350. The planes are similar in price new(6.3 mil for jet, 6.1 for turbo prop). The fuel cost is about .40 cents per mile cheaper on the turbo prop. Almost all the passenger stuff is the same as far as what they can carry. The turbo prop has a about 150 mile longer range but the jet has a higher cruise speed(360 mph vs 478 mph). From what I read the yearly cost of the jet is about 100k more a year and in the grand scheme of these two schools budgets that is not a lot of difference. In the end it would seem like a wash to me.

The maintenance cost are far greater on a jet as opposed to turbo props...Hence the reason you see so many turbo props out there.....

Not going to get into the weeds as to why that difference exist but jet craft carry far more maintenance requirements than that of the props....

The trade off is a bit less in speed but your recruiting the southeast as your primary target so not sure what arriving 10 mins sooner to most destinations actually does for you...

To each his own but again having a jet when a turbo prop will virtually do the same job is for BLING

 

[gamecock_07]

Which is why I said we'll have to agree to disagree. I wasn't trying to argue with you. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I just don't agree with you, for a variety of reasons, many which haven't been discussed and aren't worth discussing.

fair. I didnt perceive any ill will, just a discussion on a topic that doesn't really have a correct answer. youre a tiger fan, im a gamecock, we're bound to disagree. (joke)