2014 NCAA Finances

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

UC with total revenue of $59M
Ranked #52 overall.
Ranked #2 of all the G5 schools behind UConn who was 44th overall.
Ranked ahead of two P5 schools, Utah and Wash St, both from the Pac12.

As the 2nd highest G5 school I'd say financially UC is well positioned in regards to showing the P5 conferences that it is committed to athletic spending.

Not bad but I look forward to the day where close to half of our revenue is not via subsidized funds. Jeez. Look at the percent subsidized column.

In the top 52, Rutgers , UCONN and UC stick out like a goiter.

(06-04-2015 04:55 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Not bad but I look forward to the day where close to half of our revenue is not via subsidized funds. Jeez. Look at the percent subsidized column.

In the top 52, Rutgers , UCONN and UC stick out like a goiter.

True. At least UC admin and board is committed though.

True dat.

When you look down the list it's clear the have nots are forced to fund via school subsidies and student fees. It's a requirement for anyone who does not want to be FCS.

(06-04-2015 07:26 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  True dat.

When you look down the list it's clear the have nots are forced to fund via school subsidies and student fees. It's a requirement for anyone who does not want to be FCS.

All of the non-P5 schools have high subsidies. What this tells me and the P5 schools is UC is financially committed to collegiate athletics. This is a good thing for now.

(06-04-2015 04:55 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Not bad but I look forward to the day where close to half of our revenue is not via subsidized funds. Jeez. Look at the percent subsidized column.

In the top 52, Rutgers , UCONN and UC stick out like a goiter.

That will change for Rutgers as it begins to enjoy B1G money. Absent a bump up to the big leagues, I think it will only get worse for UConn and UC.

I'm glad we have the subsidy. As long as we are in the G5 we will need it. It also shows that we are committed to athletics. I think it's total bs when these P5 schools snub their noses at us because of the subsidy. Hey, give us P5 tv money and a P5 home football slate and we wouldn't need the subsidy either.

(06-06-2015 05:35 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I'm glad we have the subsidy. As long as we are in the G5 we will need it. It also shows that we are committed to athletics. I think it's total bs when these P5 schools snub their noses at us because of the subsidy. Hey, give us P5 tv money and a P5 home football slate and we wouldn't need the subsidy either.

Glad we have it, too. With this TV deal we'd be dead in the water without it.

Not sure I would exactly classify it as revenue, however. Sort of like loaning yourself $$ and saying the extra income bumped you up a tax bracket.

(06-04-2015 04:55 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Not bad but I look forward to the day where close to half of our revenue is not via subsidized funds. Jeez. Look at the percent subsidized column.

In the top 52, Rutgers , UCONN and UC stick out like a goiter.

If you were in a power conference that received $15-20 million a year in revenue sharing instead of $2 million from the AAC, the subsidies wouldn't need to be as high.

(06-08-2015 12:06 PM)3rd Wise Man Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 04:55 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Not bad but I look forward to the day where close to half of our revenue is not via subsidized funds. Jeez. Look at the percent subsidized column.

In the top 52, Rutgers , UCONN and UC stick out like a goiter.

If you were in a power conference that received $15-20 million a year in revenue sharing instead of $2 million from the AAC, the subsidies wouldn't need to be as high.

Do not forget more money from the college football playoff and more lucrative bowl tie-ins.

I have been saying it for a couple years but people need to start encouraging the politicians in this state to intervene. There is s lot of pork that they are leaving off the table for their constituents. There is no reason why states half the size of Ohio have three (Indiana) or two teams (Ky) in the P5 and Ohio has only one.

Although it would be great not to have to have them athletics fee on students' tuition, I will say that UC athletics does a lot more for its students than a lot of the schools ranked higher. For instance at Louisville not only do students pay an athletics fee they also have to pay for a license to "claim" a student ticket at football and basketball games. The problem lies in that UofL sells more licenses than there are seats in the student section, thus students can be turned away. The cost of this license to students is actually more than general public season tickets at UC.

UC gives students free tickets to home games, which most schools do not (that are higher ranked than UC) and subsidizes post-season trips like to the Military bowl this year. Students who went to the Military Bowl only paid a small fraction of what it cost for the transportation, hotel and game ticket.