Looking at Big East finances

May, 14, 2013
May 14 9:00AM ETBy Matt Fortuna | ESPN.com


The highest-grossing Big East athletic department? Surprise, surprise: That would be Louisville.

The lowest? Houston, although the Cougars did not lead the conference in money spent to meet the budget.

A recent USA Today report lists 228 NCAA schools by total revenue, total expenses, total subsidy and percentage of money spent to subsidize athletics.

The Cardinals' $87,840,501 in total athletic revenue from 2012 leads the pack of Big East schools and is 20th nationally, 21 spots above No. 41 Rutgers and its $64,038,720 in revenue.

The Scarlet Knights, however, are No. 2 nationally in money spent to subsidize athletics, taking $27,996,056 to cover their deficit. USA Today says that Rutgers used roughly $18.5 million from the school and roughly $9.5 million in student fees. Rutgers improved slightly from 2011, when it spent $28.5 million more than it generated.

Only UNLV ($32,596,860) spent more to subsidize its athletic budget. Rutgers was 157th nationally in percentage of athletic budget that came from other sources (43.72 percent), finishing behind conference brethren Houston.

The Cougars finished 10th overall in money borrowed ($21,343,858) but 138th in percentage of money borrowed (58.23 percent), leading the conference in the latter category.

USA Today explains its methodology here. Figures from Temple and SMU were unavailable.

Here is how Big East schools ranked in 2012 in total athletic revenue.

20) Louisville: $87,840,501
41) Rutgers: $64,038,720
42) UConn: $63,566,909
53) Cincinnati: $48,892,291
54) Memphis: $46,783,503
56) USF: $43,574,000
60) UCF: $40,993,870
64) Houston: $36,652,492

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigeast/post/_/i...t-finances

Here is the link to USA Today Article:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s.../finances/

As I imagined, Cincinnati is closer to AAC schools than Power 5 schools. Clearly showing what conference fits us the best.

(05-14-2013 12:16 PM)kobe Wrote:  As I imagined, Cincinnati is closer to AAC schools than Power 5 schools. Clearly showing what conference fits us the best.

(05-14-2013 12:16 PM)kobe Wrote:  As I imagined, Cincinnati is closer to AAC schools than Power 5 schools. Clearly showing what conference fits us the best.

That is a "glass half empty" mindset. You can also look at our results on the field and think of what we could do with even Rutgers type revenue. Perhaps the Power 5 conferences will see us as a diamond in the rough ready to shine.

(05-14-2013 12:16 PM)kobe Wrote:  As I imagined, Cincinnati is closer to AAC schools than Power 5 schools. Clearly showing what conference fits us the best.

Ridiculous comment. Give UC the Power 5 tv money and then where would they be.

Basic assumption can be made that if UC was in one of the Power 5 conferences they would be generating an extra $15M in TV money. Then throw in a few extra million from increased attendance at football games due to the improved quality of competition and UC is sitting above $65M+. That puts them well in the Power 5 money range ahead of several schools.

The only difference between UC and about a third to half of the power 5 schools when it comes to revenue is that TV contract.

The bigger question is how can Utah and Washington St be included in the Power 5 conferences with revenue in the $40-$42M range. That means they only generate a little over $20M other than the TV money. That's pathetic.

(05-14-2013 01:59 PM)nachoman91 Wrote:  The bigger question is how can Utah and Washington St be included in the Power 5 conferences with revenue in the $40-$42M range. That means they only generate a little over $20M other than the TV money. That's pathetic.

You have SEEN the product that Washington State brings to the various fields and courts of collegiate athletics...right?

(05-14-2013 01:54 PM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 12:16 PM)kobe Wrote:  As I imagined, Cincinnati is closer to AAC schools than Power 5 schools. Clearly showing what conference fits us the best.

Ridiculous comment. Give UC the Power 5 tv money and then where would they be.

Basic assumption can be made that if UC was in one of the Power 5 conferences they would be generating an extra $15M in TV money. Then throw in a few extra million from increased attendance at football games due to the improved quality of competition and UC is sitting above $65M+. That puts them well in the Power 5 money range ahead of several schools.

The only difference between UC and about a third to half of the power 5 schools when it comes to revenue is that TV contract.

More like factual comment. Look at the numbers for Louisville, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pittsburgh etc. None of them had that extra TV money, yet they DWARF Cincinnati.

Rutgers is a bad comparison. Their athletic department was/still is in serious debt.

Dan Wolken ‏@DanWolken

@tsnmike Cincy may very well have the worst facility situation in the league once Houston's stuff gets done.
---------------------------
I can't say I disagree.

(05-14-2013 03:09 PM)kobe Wrote:  Dan Wolken ‏@DanWolken

@tsnmike Cincy may very well have the worst facility situation in the league once Houston's stuff gets done.
---------------------------
I can't say I disagree.

Kobe...member since April 2013= TROLL
Slams the program...brings nothing constructive ...definitely a TROLL

(05-14-2013 03:09 PM)kobe Wrote:  Dan Wolken ‏@DanWolken

@tsnmike Cincy may very well have the worst facility situation in the league once Houston's stuff gets done.
---------------------------
I can't say I disagree.

LMAO -- seriously?

(05-14-2013 02:18 PM)kobe Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 01:54 PM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 12:16 PM)kobe Wrote:  As I imagined, Cincinnati is closer to AAC schools than Power 5 schools. Clearly showing what conference fits us the best.

Ridiculous comment. Give UC the Power 5 tv money and then where would they be.

Basic assumption can be made that if UC was in one of the Power 5 conferences they would be generating an extra $15M in TV money. Then throw in a few extra million from increased attendance at football games due to the improved quality of competition and UC is sitting above $65M+. That puts them well in the Power 5 money range ahead of several schools.

The only difference between UC and about a third to half of the power 5 schools when it comes to revenue is that TV contract.

More like factual comment. Look at the numbers for Louisville, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pittsburgh etc. None of them had that extra TV money, yet they DWARF Cincinnati.

Neck and neck with Mizzou and Ole Miss, who have a ton more t.v. money than UC. Ahead of Utah and Washington State, who have a ton more t.v. money than UC. Louisville is a no brainer as they are one of the top revenue schools in the NCAA, but I don't even see Pitt and Syracuse on that list, so where are you getting that they "DWARF" Cincinnati? Oh, you just made it up? I see. Your posts are like getting a research project back from a two year old.

Has anyone thought it's possible kobe is Miami (oh) Yeah?

(05-14-2013 04:20 PM)bearcatmill Wrote:  Has anyone thought it's possible kobe is Miami (oh) Yeah?

i thought it was established that he is/was bearcat_bounce?

Just sharing a tweet, no need to hate on the messenger.

I thought that article was quoting the expenses, I didn't take the time to read it. Sorry for the confusion. Here is what I was referring to from a thread on the CR Board.

"Equity in Athletics website (http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/) has Cincy at $39.6 million for the 2011-12 school year. South Florida and UConn were at 43.6 and 63.8 million respectively. These compare to approximately $87 million for UL, 56 million for Pittsburgh and 73 million for Syracuse, respectively."

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=633...pid9322953

(05-14-2013 03:55 PM)MickMack Wrote:  Neck and neck with Mizzou and Ole Miss, who have a ton more t.v. money than UC. Ahead of Utah and Washington State, who have a ton more t.v. money than UC. Louisville is a no brainer as they are one of the top revenue schools in the NCAA, but I don't even see Pitt and Syracuse on that list, so where are you getting that they "DWARF" Cincinnati? Oh, you just made it up? I see. Your posts are like getting a research project back from a two year old.

For what it's worth, Pitt is private and doesn't report a lot of their finances.

(05-14-2013 08:01 PM)bearcatdp Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 03:55 PM)MickMack Wrote:  Neck and neck with Mizzou and Ole Miss, who have a ton more t.v. money than UC. Ahead of Utah and Washington State, who have a ton more t.v. money than UC. Louisville is a no brainer as they are one of the top revenue schools in the NCAA, but I don't even see Pitt and Syracuse on that list, so where are you getting that they "DWARF" Cincinnati? Oh, you just made it up? I see. Your posts are like getting a research project back from a two year old.

For what it's worth, Pitt is private and doesn't report a lot of their finances.

It's a public research university, not private. I don't doubt it's revenue is higher, but trollcat bounce didn't even bother to check the list to see if that's what it said.

(05-14-2013 08:26 PM)MickMack Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 08:01 PM)bearcatdp Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 03:55 PM)MickMack Wrote:  Neck and neck with Mizzou and Ole Miss, who have a ton more t.v. money than UC. Ahead of Utah and Washington State, who have a ton more t.v. money than UC. Louisville is a no brainer as they are one of the top revenue schools in the NCAA, but I don't even see Pitt and Syracuse on that list, so where are you getting that they "DWARF" Cincinnati? Oh, you just made it up? I see. Your posts are like getting a research project back from a two year old.

For what it's worth, Pitt is private and doesn't report a lot of their finances.

It's a public research university, not private. I don't doubt it's revenue is higher, but trollcat bounce didn't even bother to check the list to see if that's what it said.

I just provided you a link indicating that Pittsburgh spends almost $17 million more on athletics than UC. They are a large, urban public research university. One some may consider a peer so no hiding of finances. Nice try though. This will be my last post responding to such an obvious troll. I really do not want to piss people off and get banned again. I am sorry.

(05-14-2013 08:26 PM)MickMack Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 08:01 PM)bearcatdp Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 03:55 PM)MickMack Wrote:  Neck and neck with Mizzou and Ole Miss, who have a ton more t.v. money than UC. Ahead of Utah and Washington State, who have a ton more t.v. money than UC. Louisville is a no brainer as they are one of the top revenue schools in the NCAA, but I don't even see Pitt and Syracuse on that list, so where are you getting that they "DWARF" Cincinnati? Oh, you just made it up? I see. Your posts are like getting a research project back from a two year old.

For what it's worth, Pitt is private and doesn't report a lot of their finances.

It's a public research university, not private. I don't doubt it's revenue is higher, but trollcat bounce didn't even bother to check the list to see if that's what it said.

Pitt is what they call a state-related university. In a nutshell they are a quasi-public school. Pitt was a private university up until 1966. As a state-related university they receive a small amount of public funds to cover some of its operating budget (about 9%). Given that they only receive a small amount of public funds, they university has the luxury of operating independently like a private school. They have the best of both worlds.