USA Article lists Athletic revenues for Big 10 (May 2015 numbers)

[TwinDegrees2]

USAToday released their chart of athletic department revenues today and the numbers are worth a look.

College athletic departments are turning a huge profit off athletes, right? Well, maybe not.

The USA Today does a tremendous job each year compiling the balance sheets of every public institution in Division I's athletic department. In the 2013-14 fiscal, the Big Ten and SEC dominated the standings of moneymaking.

Oregon held the top overall spot for this period, raking in almost $200 million in revenue. Michigan (2nd), Ohio State (5th), Wisconsin (8th), Penn State (12th), Minnesota (15th), Iowa (16th), and Michigan State (18th) gave the Big Ten seven of the top 20 schools in the rankings -- a number matched only by the SEC. By contrast, the ACC and Pac-12 only managed one school each in the top 20 of the rankings in Oregon and Florida State (17th).

Indiana came in 9th among Big Ten teams, bringing in around $84 million in the 2013-14 fiscal. The department also spent around $80 million and received a state subsidy of around $3 million.

Full standings are below. Purdue was last, but Rutgers "cheated" to get out of last -- receiving a $36 million subsidy to support the athletic department. Maryland also received a large $18 million subsidy. It's worth noting, however, that both of those schools were still transitioning out of the AAC and ACC during the 2013-14 fiscal and had large exit fees to pay. Northwestern does not have to report financial numbers because they are a private institution not subject to Illinois open records laws.

Of course, it's easy for schools to "cook the books" on these numbers -- often spending money that might not need to be spend in order to equate the balance sheet. So these can ultimately be taken with a grain of salt, if you're looking to make an argument for or against the pay-for-play model.

2013-14 Big Ten Financials (ranked by revenue)
Rank School Revenue Expenses Subsidy
1 Michigan $157,899,820 $142,551,994 $256,316
2 Ohio State $145,232,681 $113,937,001 $0
3 Wisconsin $127,910,918 $125,096,235 $8,073,360
4 Penn State $117,590,990 $117,440,639 $0
5 Minnesota $106,176,156 $106,176,156 $7,011,066
6 Iowa $105,958,954 $102,278,847 $683,917
7 Michigan State $104,677,456 $107,422,832 $1,094,958
8 Nebraska $94,797,692 $90,939,273 $0
9 Indiana $84,668,779 $80,368,732 $3,008,362
10 Illinois $80,848,569 $83,112,351 $3,927,372
11 Rutgers* $76,656,339 $76,656,339 $36,340,665
12 Maryland* $73,434,869 $72,952,894 $18,121,113
13 Purdue $71,372,206 $74,604,756 $0

 

[Marcellis]

I noticed the iu subsidy is listed as "school funds", does anyone know if this is student fee based, or a state subsidy? I am assuming student fee (if it's state based that would be insulting )

I think we could argue its time to revisit the student fee subsidy at Purdue (we had it while I was in school). Given the fact sports (football in particular) are the front porch of the university (IMO), sometimes you you need to renovate, and that means those living in the house need to contribute too. I know it was ended because of opposition citing not all students cared about sports, but it's a fee/tax like all others that affect people at different levels (not all students use the Co-Rec but it is/was a generic fee). I'm talking a small amount, when multiplied by 38K students, helps the bottom line.

What is the general feeling about re-instituting such a fee?

 

[uelnesm]

This is so telling...for the most part the $ amount from the University is a rounding error (with one or two exceptions).

I guess - I would look at an Iowa, Minnesota, maybe Wisconsin as "peers" - those three all of 9 figure budgets...to which we are $30M + away from them in revenue. It's really quite shocking how there can be that much of a gap....

I guess I would be interested to understand what drives such a gap...

 

[BoilerBulldog]

This is so telling...for the most part the $ amount from the University is a rounding error (with one or two exceptions).

I guess - I would look at an Iowa, Minnesota, maybe Wisconsin as "peers" - those three all of 9 figure budgets...to which we are $30M + away from them in revenue. It's really quite shocking how there can be that much of a gap....

I guess I would be interested to understand what drives such a gap...

What's really scary is that we could sell 20K more tickets to every home game and not cut that gap even in half.

 

[Statey]

I noticed the iu subsidy is listed as "school funds", does anyone know if this is student fee based, or a state subsidy? I am assuming student fee (if it's state based that would be insulting )

You can click on the name of each school for more details, one of which is the amount of student activity fees are included in revenues. Looks like IU stopped charging one in 2006 (fees were $1M+ that year compared with nothing thereafter).

On your second question, no state government money can be "given" to athletic departments in the form of no-strings-attached contributions. The rationale being that taxpayer dollars cannot be used to support athletics *. In Indiana, at least.

* It might be permissible for state gov't money to be used to buy tickets for collegiate sporting events, but this would be a purchase at fair value, not a donation.

 

[BoilerBulldog]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/sports/wp/2015/11/23/running-up-the-bills/

Interesting article today in the WP.

 

[uelnesm]

That Washington Post Article looks fairly fascinating. Read the first page or two - then realized it kept going and going and going.

I'm still stunned at the revenue gap between Purdue and other BIG schools. $30M+ is a huge gap

 

[goody1986]

USAToday released their chart of athletic department revenues today and the numbers are worth a look.

College athletic departments are turning a huge profit off athletes, right? Well, maybe not.

The USA Today does a tremendous job each year compiling the balance sheets of every public institution in Division I's athletic department. In the 2013-14 fiscal, the Big Ten and SEC dominated the standings of moneymaking.

Oregon held the top overall spot for this period, raking in almost $200 million in revenue. Michigan (2nd), Ohio State (5th), Wisconsin (8th), Penn State (12th), Minnesota (15th), Iowa (16th), and Michigan State (18th) gave the Big Ten seven of the top 20 schools in the rankings -- a number matched only by the SEC. By contrast, the ACC and Pac-12 only managed one school each in the top 20 of the rankings in Oregon and Florida State (17th).

Indiana came in 9th among Big Ten teams, bringing in around $84 million in the 2013-14 fiscal. The department also spent around $80 million and received a state subsidy of around $3 million.

Full standings are below. Purdue was last, but Rutgers "cheated" to get out of last -- receiving a $36 million subsidy to support the athletic department. Maryland also received a large $18 million subsidy. It's worth noting, however, that both of those schools were still transitioning out of the AAC and ACC during the 2013-14 fiscal and had large exit fees to pay. Northwestern does not have to report financial numbers because they are a private institution not subject to Illinois open records laws.

Of course, it's easy for schools to "cook the books" on these numbers -- often spending money that might not need to be spend in order to equate the balance sheet. So these can ultimately be taken with a grain of salt, if you're looking to make an argument for or against the pay-for-play model.

2013-14 Big Ten Financials (ranked by revenue)
Rank School Revenue Expenses Subsidy
1 Michigan $157,899,820 $142,551,994 $256,316
2 Ohio State $145,232,681 $113,937,001 $0
3 Wisconsin $127,910,918 $125,096,235 $8,073,360
4 Penn State $117,590,990 $117,440,639 $0
5 Minnesota $106,176,156 $106,176,156 $7,011,066
6 Iowa $105,958,954 $102,278,847 $683,917
7 Michigan State $104,677,456 $107,422,832 $1,094,958
8 Nebraska $94,797,692 $90,939,273 $0
9 Indiana $84,668,779 $80,368,732 $3,008,362
10 Illinois $80,848,569 $83,112,351 $3,927,372
11 Rutgers* $76,656,339 $76,656,339 $36,340,665
12 Maryland* $73,434,869 $72,952,894 $18,121,113
13 Purdue $71,372,206 $74,604,756 $0

These numbers are always difficult to parse out - you really need to be very familiar with each school to make any sense of it. For example, I'm not sure what the $3 mil subsidy the IU AD gets is for, or where it comes from (other than it doesn't come from a student fee). The subsidy is less than the amount of profit the AD made, so it's not keeping things in the black. Also, the IU AD gave the academic house half of the money needed ($26.5 mil of a $53 mil building) to build the new School of Global and International Studies building that just opened. On one hand, the AD received a subsidy, on the other hand, the AD gave a much, much larger subsidy the academic house.

 

[loftygoal]

We not only had the smallest revenue but we had the largest "loss". And these are 2013 numbers - I think that last year was worse in terms of ticket revenue. I wonder if these expenses are really more of a spending number? The WP article comingles capital and expenses when it discusses spending. Regardless, this just confirms the $3 mil shortfall that had been reported earlier and the dire need to drastically improve ticket sales and cutting expenses in non revenue producing sports.

 

[lbodel]

What's really scary is that we could sell 20K more tickets to every home game and not cut that gap even in half.

It's not that simple.

First off, donations for tickets. Donations for tickets can be a bigger source of revenue than the tickets themselves. Obviously the fewer tickets Purdue is selling, the fewer seats tied to a donation. In addition, why make a JPC donation or sit in a "fee" section when you can sit the next section over without one and get great seats? There's no demand. Purdue's way of tying donations/fee is also not close to what most other schools do. Also, having $200 as the 'entry level' for donating is not very friendly.

Secondly, donations for parking. This can be a bigger source of revenue than tickets as well - some schools more so than others depending on availability. Purdue has not done a great job of maximizing parking demand when it existed for tailgating. Obviously now, tailgating is not what it used to be, so who's going to make a certain JPC donation to park somewhere for tailgating when their friends don't come to games?

Third, parking pass sales themselves.

Fourth, demand. Purdue's standard numbers for a bit was around 40k season tickets. If Purdue sold 40,000 season tickets, we would sell the stadium out every game. It would be competitive to get good season tickets, which requires higher donations. You'd need to be a donor to get access to buy tickets. This is one of the main reasons I found it so baffling that Purdue touted an 80,000 seat stadium. Can you imagine that today? Even in 2000, Purdue did not sell out every game in a 67,000 seat stadium. When the hell would you have demand for 80? Demand is a great thing to have. Look at Oregon - a top team year after year and their stadium is 54,000. But they know their ceiling for fans is not like a Penn State and the demand produces great revenue.

Fifth, additional sources of revenue include concession, merchandise sales, program sales, etc.

So yes, if Purdue simply sold 20,000 tickets every game, would it make up $20 million? No. But there's a lot more that goes into it.

You also have to consider men's basketball is also included in these numbers. The fiscal year they are using is probably not one of Purdue's better ones in terms of revenues for MBB.

 

[BoilerBulldog]

It's not that simple.

First off, donations for tickets. Donations for tickets can be a bigger source of revenue than the tickets themselves. Obviously the fewer tickets Purdue is selling, the fewer seats tied to a donation. In addition, why make a JPC donation or sit in a "fee" section when you can sit the next section over without one and get great seats? There's no demand. Purdue's way of tying donations/fee is also not close to what most other schools do. Also, having $200 as the 'entry level' for donating is not very friendly.

Secondly, donations for parking. This can be a bigger source of revenue than tickets as well - some schools more so than others depending on availability. Purdue has not done a great job of maximizing parking demand when it existed for tailgating. Obviously now, tailgating is not what it used to be, so who's going to make a certain JPC donation to park somewhere for tailgating when their friends don't come to games?

Third, parking pass sales themselves.

Fourth, demand. Purdue's standard numbers for a bit was around 40k season tickets. If Purdue sold 40,000 season tickets, we would sell the stadium out every game. It would be competitive to get good season tickets, which requires higher donations. You'd need to be a donor to get access to buy tickets. This is one of the main reasons I found it so baffling that Purdue touted an 80,000 seat stadium. Can you imagine that today? Even in 2000, Purdue did not sell out every game in a 67,000 seat stadium. When the hell would you have demand for 80? Demand is a great thing to have. Look at Oregon - a top team year after year and their stadium is 54,000. But they know their ceiling for fans is not like a Penn State and the demand produces great revenue.

Fifth, additional sources of revenue include concession, merchandise sales, program sales, etc.

So yes, if Purdue simply sold 20,000 tickets every game, would it make up $20 million? No. But there's a lot more that goes into it.

You also have to consider men's basketball is also included in these numbers. The fiscal year they are using is probably not one of Purdue's better ones in terms of revenues for MBB.

Dude. Seriously. You and I have debated AD revenues a half dozen times and, while we've rarely agreed, I'd hope you at least recognize by now I understand there are more revenue streams than just football tickets. My point is simply a counter argument to the overly simplified one that states we aren't with our "peer" institutions like MSU and IA because of football attendance. Of course this is far from all-inclusive, but selling 20k $60 tickets for 7 home games and paying $25 to park and $15 for a drink and popcorn would only generate $14M incremental revenue (and that doesn't account for the offset due to ticket revenue sharing for conference games). The gap to our "peers" is $30M+. Of course there would be other residual increases in JPC membership, apparel, etc. I'm still not convinced it would close that gap to be a peer with those schools.

That's my only point. We are WAY behind schools some of us consider to be "peers".

 

[loftygoal]

It's not that simple.

First off, donations for tickets. Donations for tickets can be a bigger source of revenue than the tickets themselves. Obviously the fewer tickets Purdue is selling, the fewer seats tied to a donation. In addition, why make a JPC donation or sit in a "fee" section when you can sit the next section over without one and get great seats? There's no demand. Purdue's way of tying donations/fee is also not close to what most other schools do. Also, having $200 as the 'entry level' for donating is not very friendly.

Secondly, donations for parking. This can be a bigger source of revenue than tickets as well - some schools more so than others depending on availability. Purdue has not done a great job of maximizing parking demand when it existed for tailgating. Obviously now, tailgating is not what it used to be, so who's going to make a certain JPC donation to park somewhere for tailgating when their friends don't come to games?

Third, parking pass sales themselves.

Fourth, demand. Purdue's standard numbers for a bit was around 40k season tickets. If Purdue sold 40,000 season tickets, we would sell the stadium out every game. It would be competitive to get good season tickets, which requires higher donations. You'd need to be a donor to get access to buy tickets. This is one of the main reasons I found it so baffling that Purdue touted an 80,000 seat stadium. Can you imagine that today? Even in 2000, Purdue did not sell out every game in a 67,000 seat stadium. When the hell would you have demand for 80? Demand is a great thing to have. Look at Oregon - a top team year after year and their stadium is 54,000. But they know their ceiling for fans is not like a Penn State and the demand produces great revenue.

Fifth, additional sources of revenue include concession, merchandise sales, program sales, etc.

So yes, if Purdue simply sold 20,000 tickets every game, would it make up $20 million? No. But there's a lot more that goes into it.

You also have to consider men's basketball is also included in these numbers. The fiscal year they are using is probably not one of Purdue's better ones in terms of revenues for MBB.

If you think this through, there really is no option but to get rid of Haz. The dire need to increase ticket sales which has a commensurate impact on all other related sales makes this a no brainer. You can't save your way to prosperity. Another year of this guy could sink the entire AD.

 

[lbodel]

Dude. Seriously. You and I have debated AD revenues a half dozen times and, while we've rarely agreed, I'd hope you at least recognize by now I understand there are more revenue streams than just football tickets. My point is simply a counter argument to the overly simplified one that states we aren't with our "peer" institutions like MSU and IA because of football attendance. Of course this is far from all-inclusive, but selling 20k $60 tickets for 7 home games and paying $25 to park and $15 for a drink and popcorn would only generate $14M incremental revenue (and that doesn't account for the offset due to ticket revenue sharing for conference games). The gap to our "peers" is $30M+. Of course there would be other residual increases in JPC membership, apparel, etc. I'm still not convinced it would close that gap to be a peer with those schools.

That's my only point. We are WAY behind schools some of us consider to be "peers".

I'm not saying you don't, but it collectively adds up (you doing tickets parking and concessions got you half way to the $30 million). How many of our premium seats are sold? How many of our suites? I stated above - Purdue does not price tickets/donations how virtually every school in the country does. Entry JPC membership level is significantly higher than virtually every school.

Maybe if we operated like other successful schools, we'd see better revenues. The Legacy Fee is literally the dumbest thing I've seen implemented and annihilated our basketball season ticket base that was built up during successful years. And when added to football, literally just gouged loyal fans because the base was getting smaller and smaller.

 

[BoilerBulldog]

I'm not saying you don't, but it collectively adds up (you doing tickets parking and concessions got you half way to the $30 million). How many of our premium seats are sold? How many of our suites? I stated above - Purdue does not price tickets/donations how virtually every school in the country does. Entry JPC membership level is significantly higher than virtually every school.

Maybe if we operated like other successful schools, we'd see better revenues. The Legacy Fee is literally the dumbest thing I've seen implemented and annihilated our basketball season ticket base that was built up during successful years. And when added to football, literally just gouged loyal fans because the base was getting smaller and smaller.

Totally agree on both of your points concerning the legacy fund and the JPC.