Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Total athletic department revenues

BerkeleyBuff

BerkeleyBuff

Well-Known Member
Entire list is here. Broken down by conference below. Discuss as you wish.

SEC:

2. Texas A&M: $211,960,034
5. Alabama: $174,307,419
6. Georgia: $157,852,479
8. Florida: $149,165,475
9. Louisiana State: $147,744,233
10. Auburn: $147,511,034
11. Tennessee: $145,653,191
16. South Carolina: $136,032,845
18. Kentucky: $130,706,744
20. Arkansas: $129,680,808
26. Mississippi: $117,834,511
36. Mississippi State: $100,062,237
38. Missouri: $97,848,195
62. Vanderbilt: $80,335,651
Total: $1,926,694,856
Average Per Team: $137,621,061


Big 10:

3. Ohio State: $185,409,602
4. Michigan: $185,173,187
14. Penn State: $144,017,055
15. Wisconsin: $142,930,591
19. Iowa: $130,681,467
22. Michigan State: $126,021,377
25. Nebraska: $120,205,090
27. Minnesota: $116,376,862
31. Indiana: $106,139,192
39. Illinois: $97,447,731
40. Rutgers: $96,883,027
43. Maryland: $94,881,357
54. Purdue: $84,841,133
56. Northwestern: $84,279,755
Total: $1,715,848,804
Average Per Team: $122,560,629


Big 12:

1. Texas: $214,830,647
7. Oklahoma: $155,238,481
30. West Virginia: $110,565,870
32. Texas Christian: $105,055,587
37. Baylor: $98,125,426
42. Kansas: $95,251,461
46. Oklahoma State: $91,644,865
51. Texas Tech: $88,804,476
53. Kansas State: $86,081,528
60. Iowa State: $82,659,447
Total: $1,128,257,788
Average Per Team: $112,825,779


PAC 12:

12. Oregon: $145,417,315
21. Washington: $128,745,183
23. Stanford: $125,039,558
28. Southern Cal: $113,174,912
33. Cal Los Angeles: $104,106,646
34. Arizona State: $101,579,860
44. Colorado: $94,226,111
48. Arizona: $90,976,758
49. California: $90,976,576
58. Utah: $83,672,639
63. Oregon State: $78,959,875
****************************
66. Washington State: $64,294,520
Total: $1,221,169,953
Average Per Team: $101,764,163


ACC:

13. Florida State: $144,514,413
24. Louisville: $120,445,303
29. Clemson: $112,600,964
35. Duke: $100,480,206
41. North Carolina: $96,540,823
45. Virginia: $92,865,175
47. Syracuse: $91,445,865
50. Miami: $89,135,175
52. Virginia Tech: $87,427,526
55. Pittsburgh: $84,831,036
57. N.C. State: $83,741,572
61. Georgia Tech: $81,762,024
64. Boston College: $74,587,091
65. Wake Forest: $66,995,224
Total: $1,327,372,397
Average Per Team: $94,812,314

*17. Notre Dame: $132,371,404

Gross Total Revenue Average Per School by Conference:
1. SEC: $137,621,061
2. B1G: $122,560,629 (-$15,060,432)
3. B12: $112,825,779 (-$24,795,282)
4. PAC: $101,764,163 (-$35,856,898)
5. ACC: $ 94,812,314 (-$42,808,747)
 
That's really not bad.

Now if we can just figure out how we can get to where the Pac-12 Networks actually pays everyone $5-$10M per year instead of being a big fat zero then we'd be in excellent shape.

Our other deals are just fine and will follow the markets. PACN has to start realizing profits, though, for the conference to move up to where it should be.
 
SerenityBuff said:
Damn, there's a lot of money in Texas. No one is even really close to UT and A&M.
Click to expand...
Billionaire oil fortunes (or close to it) want bragging rights on Mondays during football season. It's all a big measure-your-dick contest down there. Just look at the endowments at Texas universities. Places like SMU blow away many P5 members.
 
Buffnik said:
Billionaire oil fortunes (or close to it) want bragging rights on Mondays during football season. It's all a big measure-your-dick contest down there. Just look at the endowments at Texas universities. Places like SMU blow away many P5 members.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about donations? Are those included in "revenues"?
 
Buffnik said:
Billionaire oil fortunes (or close to it) want bragging rights on Mondays during football season. It's all a big measure-your-dick contest down there. Just look at the endowments at Texas universities. Places like SMU blow away many P5 members.
Click to expand...

Well, do you expect Eric Dickerson to buy his own car?
 
I know A&M's turnover blew up after the switch to the SEC, Manziel's Heisman etc. and how they effectively parlayed that momentum into the Kyle Field redevelopment, but I was under the impression the majority of their turnover was still based on donations specifically tied to the facilities project and not general donations.
 
Not Sure said:
Am I crazy for thinking that’s not bad at all?
Click to expand...
It's not awful. The bigger problem is that the gap is going to grow considerably. The B1G and SEC are both set to get sizeable jumps next year (from 6-12 million), and the Big XII will go up a bit as well. The cumulative loss we (the PAC 12) have over the next 10 years is what's really troubling.
 
TSchekler said:
Are you talking about donations? Are those included in "revenues"?
Click to expand...
I didn't look at these stats in detail, but donations usually are considered in these things. I believe it was in the CU number I saw that matched up with the number that was in this link. That logically makes sense with aTm being number 1 since they just had record breaking donor years to fund facilities.
 
Buffnik said:
I didn't look at these stats in detail, but donations usually are considered in these things. I believe it was in the CU number I saw that matched up with the number that was in this link. That logically makes sense with aTm being number 1 since they just had record breaking donor years to fund facilities.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised CU is ahead of Okie State, then, with their sugar daddy. Then again, maybe he doesn't donate as much anymore?
 
TSchekler said:
I'm surprised CU is ahead of Okie State, then, with their sugar daddy. Then again, maybe he doesn't donate as much anymore?
Click to expand...
iirc, he gave them a bunch of the stock in his company to endow the department - and the stock may have actually gone down. I don't think there's annual giving or leadership in covering the tab on things like "we need to build a new baseball complex" like Nike/Knight do for Oregon as those things come up.
 
CU really needs to do better on ticket revenues.

West side enhancements has got to be the #1 item on RG's list.

Edit: Well, that and increasing the donor culture at CU.
 
Buffnik said:
CU really needs to do better on ticket revenues.

West side enhancements has got to be the #1 item on RG's list.

Edit: Well, that and increasing the donor culture at CU.
Click to expand...

I'm a bit surprised to see Oregon's being all over the place, especially as I know that Knight doesn't directly contribute to the AD when he helps them with facilities, but instead buys the land from the university, builds what they want and then sells it back for a dollar.
 
CUs revenues increased by $17MM in ONE YEAR. That’s a 22% increase.

We need to worry less about what Texas does. We will never reach that level.

The programs that need to worry are programs like CSU. They are standing at the pier watching the ship sail off into the horizon.
 
CU is in the bottom half of the P5, but is only ~$10m away from jumping 11-12 spots and being in the upper half. If they can get into the top 30-35 range of this list, I think I would be satisfied.
 
TSchekler said:
CU is in the bottom half of the P5, but is only ~$10m away from jumping 11-12 spots and being in the upper half. If they can get into the top 30-35 range of this list, I think I would be satisfied.
Click to expand...
Pocket change. It’s only $10 million.
 
vinniew_11 said:
Pocket change. It’s only $10 million.
Click to expand...
With continued donor support and the culture being established, that really shouldn't be that big of a deal.

'10-'11 YOY Increase = ~ $11m
'11-'12 YOY Increase = ~ ($3m)
'12-'13 YOY Increase = ~ $1m
'13-'14 YOY Increase = ~ $6m
'14-'15 YOY Increase = ~ $3m
'15-'16 YOY Increase = ~ $10m
'16-'17 YOY Increase = ~ $17m

CU needs to have a strong season, do a better job of season ticket sales and keep ramping up the donation culture.
 
The only silver lining I see in that report is that I would expect CU funds the least amount of sports amongst those teams, so I support for Football and BBall is likely to be higher than 44th. I remembered this when I was thinking "Why do we believe we should consistently be in the Top 25 if we aren't funding the program that way?"
 
TSchekler said:
With continued donor support and the culture being established, that really shouldn't be that big of a deal.

'10-'11 YOY Increase = ~ $11m
'11-'12 YOY Increase = ~ ($3m)
'12-'13 YOY Increase = ~ $1m
'13-'14 YOY Increase = ~ $6m
'14-'15 YOY Increase = ~ $3m
'15-'16 YOY Increase = ~ $10m
'16-'17 YOY Increase = ~ $17m

CU needs to have a strong season, do a better job of season ticket sales and keep ramping up the donation culture.
Click to expand...
At some point it reaches donor saturation. You can keep a level amount, but is it feasible to continue to grow, as well as keep up with the other Jones’s?
 
vinniew_11 said:
At some point it reaches donor saturation. You can keep a level amount, but is it feasible to continue to grow, as well as keep up with the other Jones’s?
Click to expand...
Well, we'd need to know what caused the big spike in "Other" to really understand if it's feasible. Rights and Licensing increased by $4m and Contributions (assuming these are Donations) increased by almost $5m. So yes, with more focus on ticket sales and better donations, I think that's possible.

Also, CU is a LONG way away from reaching donor saturation.
 
TSchekler said:
Well, we'd need to know what caused the big spike in "Other" to really understand if it's feasible. Rights and Licensing increased by $4m and Contributions (assuming these are Donations) increased by almost $5m. So yes, with more focus on ticket sales and better donations, I think that's possible.

Also, CU is a LONG way away from reaching donor saturation.
Click to expand...

I basically want to know if that 7m in other is a one-off payment or whether it can be considered a steady revenue stream.
 
Methodology for 2017 NCAA athletic department revenue database

CATEGORY EXPLANATIONS, 2015 – 2017
Summary categories
Total Revenue: Includes all sources of operating revenue.
Total Expenses: Includes all operating expenses
Total Allocated: The sum of student fees, direct and indirect institutional support and state money allocated to the athletics department, minus certain funds the department transferred back to the school. The transfer amount cannot exceed the sum of student fees and direct institutional support that the department receives from the school. (Under NCAA reporting rules, any additional money transferred to the school cannot be considered part of the department’s annual operating revenues or expenses.)
The NCAA and others consider student fees, direct and indirect institutional support and state money “allocated,” or everything not generated by the department’s athletics functions.
Percent allocated: Percent of revenues from allocated sources.
***
Revenue categories
Ticket sales: Sales of admissions to athletics events. Include ticket sales to the public, faculty and students, and money received for shipping and handling of tickets. Does not include amounts in excess of face value (such as for preferential seating).
Contributions: Includes amounts received directly from individuals, corporations, associations, foundations, clubs or other organizations for the operations of the athletics program. Amounts paid in excess of a ticket’s value. Contributions include cash, marketable securities and in-kind contributions such as dealer-provided cars for staff use. Also includes revenue from preferential seating.
Rights/Licensing: Includes revenue for athletics from radio and television broadcasts, Internet and e-commerce rights received from institution-negotiated contracts, the NCAA and conference revenue-sharing arrangements; and revenue from corporate sponsorships, licensing, sales of advertisements, trademarks and royalties. Includes the value of in-kind products and services provided as part of a corporate sponsorship (e.g., equipment, apparel, soft drinks, water and isotonic products). Also includes revenue from food, concessions and parking.
Student fees: Fees assessed to support athletics.
School funds: Includes both direct and indirect support from the university, including state funds, tuition, tuition waivers etc., as well as federal Work Study amounts for student workers employed by athletics department. It also includes the value of university-provided support such as administrative services, facilities and grounds maintenance, security, risk management, utilities, depreciation and debt service that is not charged to the athletics department.
Other: Amount that the athletics department transferred back to the school and — under a 2015 change in the NCAA’s reporting system — is recorded as a revenue loss. All other sources of revenue, including game guarantees, school-specific revenue from bowl games, support from third-parties guaranteed by the school such as TV income, housing allowances, etc.; revenue from sports camps; income from athletics restricted endowments and investments that are used for operations in the reporting year.
***
Expense categories
Coaching/staff: All salaries, bonuses (except for bowl-game bonuses) and benefits reported on the university’s tax forms for coaches and staff, as well as amounts to coaches and staff from third parties that are guaranteed by the institution.
Scholarships: Athletically related student aid, including summer school and tuition discounts and waivers (including aid given to student-athletes who have exhausted their eligibility or who are inactive due to medical reasons), and aid for non-athletes such as student managers.
Facilities/overhead: Debt service payments, including internal loan programs; other facilities costs charged to the athletics program, including maintenance, utilities and rental fees; overhead/administrative fees charged by the school to athletics.
Other: Includes guarantees paid to other schools; school-specific expenses for bowl games, severance payments to past coaches and staff; recruiting; team travel; equipment and uniforms; game day and camp expenses; fundraising and marketing costs; spirit group support; medical expense/insurance; conference dues; the value of university-provided support such as administrative services, facilities and grounds maintenance, security, risk management, utilities, depreciation and debt service that is not charged to the athletics department. For 2016, also includes meals and snacks provided for athletes beyond those provided under regular board plans and during team travel.
 
What is more interesting to me isn't the mean average, but the median. When you have outliers on one or both sides, the median is a more accurate representation of what the "average" is.

It's also about where I would expect CU's revenues to land in about any conference. We won't be in the elite at the top, we won't be in the also-rans at the bottom, we'll be somewhere in the middle group.

Sec: $141
B10: $118
B12: $97
ACC: $90
P12: $98

I do think that at this point, from an annual cash flow standpoint, we're pretty close to where we would have been had we never left the B12.

It was on balance a good idea for all the other reasons: **** Baylor, UT, road trips to stoolwater, stincoln, and other Midwest dumps being high among those reasons.

OTOH, if a B10 invite were ever in the cards, we'd have to be crazy to not seriously consider making the jump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top