The average Duke basketball player is worth $1.3 million per year to the school
by: Cork Gaines
Mar. 14, 2016, 2:55 PM

The average college basketball player at Duke University would be worth $1.3 million per year if they were able to play in a free market system and receive compensation in a manner similar to that of the NBA. And yet, despite all their success, Duke does not have the most valuable players.

We calculated the Fair Market Value of college basketball players at the 20 schools that bring in the most revenue from their men's basketball program, according to data provided by the Department of Education. Using the NBA's most recent collective bargaining agreement in which the players receive a minimum of 49% of all revenue, each school's men's basketball revenue was split between the school and the athletes with the players' share divided evenly among the 13 scholarship players.

Using this method, we can estimate that the University of Louisville has the most valuable players at $1.7 million per year (up from $1.5 million last year) based on the program's $45.8 million in annual revenue. Overall, the average Division I player is worth $296,723 per year with the average basketball program taking in nearly $8 million in revenue each year.

oops! duplicated the thread. Mods, could you delete the other one? Thank you.

That's over $400,000 per point for Sean Obi on the season (provided he doesn't score in the postseason).

This is one of those cases where median would probably be a more revealing statistic than average.

Wonder what the number for Rice would be?

I'll guarantee this, if it were at or above the D-1 average, we wouldn't be having nearly the problems with athletic funding that we do currently. That's why turning basketball around is such a huge consideration.

What do you think the number is for, say, Gonzaga?

This is certainly an interesting exercise and was penned in a way to cause an upheaval...that's the media these days...but unfortunately I think the author missed something critical.

I'm going go double check this, but I believe the NBA CBA states the players receive 49% of all revenues as a league as a way to set the salary cap each year. Not, that each individual team gives 49% of their revenue to the 20 players. To properly use the example provided, all NCAA Division I basketball program would have to put all their $ into a giant pot and then divvy that up among the 13 players x 351 teams = 4563 players.

If, the average players worth is indeed $296,723 that would bring the total revenues from NCAA Div 1 basketball to a whopping $1,353,947,049. I'm sure it's a lot but most likely it's about 1/4 that total. Give or take...but I'm happy to dispute that with the author.

Cutting the average the author derived at by 75% gives an average value per year of a little over $74K. Factoring in the cost of a scholarship plus a $1200 / month stipend for living off campus and it appears our Rice guys are on par and all the players at schools of less academic prestige should be demanding more $ or a better education. Which is actually precisely where we're at. All that and we're still not including non-scholarship players. Haha, which the fact no one seems to be arguing to help those young men is the greatest of ironies.

I'll double check my facts and would welcome anyone else to the same. Food for thought.

(03-17-2016 01:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Wonder what the number for Rice would be?

I'll guarantee this, if it were at or above the D-1 average, we wouldn't be having nearly the problems with athletic funding that we do currently. That's why turning basketball around is such a huge consideration.

What do you think the number is for, say, Gonzaga?

The figures may be outdated today, but here's a 2010 list of the basketball profits for D-1 schools: http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/18/news/com...l_profits/

(03-17-2016 02:48 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(03-17-2016 01:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Wonder what the number for Rice would be?

I'll guarantee this, if it were at or above the D-1 average, we wouldn't be having nearly the problems with athletic funding that we do currently. That's why turning basketball around is such a huge consideration.

What do you think the number is for, say, Gonzaga?

The figures may be outdated today, but here's a 2010 list of the basketball profits for D-1 schools: http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/18/news/com...l_profits/

Code:

School    Revenues    Expenses   Profit/(Loss)  Margin

Gonzaga  4,075,750    3,053,437     1,022,313      25.1%
Rice     3,522,202    4,634,331    (1,112,129)    -31.6%

Sum: 1,076,708,738  795,651,053   281,057,685      26.1%

Awesome. Thanks for that.

From the NBA CBA...

Under the CBA, all teams are subject to a Salary Cap and Minimum Team Salary for each season. The “Salary Cap” places a limit on the total salaries each team can pay its players during the season, subject to certain “Exceptions” (refer to Section I.E. below).
The Salary Cap for 2014-15 is $63.065 million. The Salary Cap for each future season, subject to certain adjustments, will be calculated by multiplying projected “Basketball Related Income” (a defined term that generally includes all income received by teams as a result of basketball operations) by 44.74%, subtracting projected player benefits, and then dividing the result by 30.
The Salary Cap Year goes into effect in early July and continues in effect until early July the following year.
The “Minimum Team Salary” is the minimum Team Salary that a team must have for a Salary Cap Year. The Minimum Team Salary for 2014-15 is $56.759 million (90% of the Salary Cap).

http://www.nba.com/media/CBA101.pdf

It's kind of interesting thought. The schools must be subtracting scholarships in those expenses. Obviously coaching salaries and team travel would go in those expenses as well. What about resources that would, at least in theory, be shared amongst other teams. Facility upkeep, strength and conditioning, trainers, etc.

Hmmm...I'm probably spending too much time on this but its definitely more fun Parliament talk then some of our other threads.

(03-17-2016 03:09 PM)BufflOwl Wrote:  The schools must be subtracting scholarships in those expenses. Obviously coaching salaries and team travel would go in those expenses as well. What about resources that would, at least in theory, be shared amongst other teams. Facility upkeep, strength and conditioning, trainers, etc.

From the linked article:

Quote:The comparison between basketball revenues and profits is interesting, but not precise. That's because schools have latitude in their filings with the Department of Education in whether they attribute some expenses and revenues to a specific sport or a more general classification for their entire athletic department.

Many schools use that latitude to have revenue and expenses for one sport equal one another rather than show a profit or a loss, a trick of accounting that wouldn't pass muster with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Some schools even make their programs look worse. Duke University, a top seed in this year's NCAA men's basketball tournament, reported the largest loss of any men's basketball program last year after years of annual profits in the $4 million to $5 million range. The school said that was due to a shift in revenue to the non-sport specific classification.

(03-17-2016 03:13 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(03-17-2016 03:09 PM)BufflOwl Wrote:  The schools must be subtracting scholarships in those expenses. Obviously coaching salaries and team travel would go in those expenses as well. What about resources that would, at least in theory, be shared amongst other teams. Facility upkeep, strength and conditioning, trainers, etc.

From the linked article:

Quote:The comparison between basketball revenues and profits is interesting, but not precise. That's because schools have latitude in their filings with the Department of Education in whether they attribute some expenses and revenues to a specific sport or a more general classification for their entire athletic department.

Many schools use that latitude to have revenue and expenses for one sport equal one another rather than show a profit or a loss, a trick of accounting that wouldn't pass muster with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Some schools even make their programs look worse. Duke University, a top seed in this year's NCAA men's basketball tournament, reported the largest loss of any men's basketball program last year after years of annual profits in the $4 million to $5 million range. The school said that was due to a shift in revenue to the non-sport specific classification.

Shady. Thanks for sharing!

(03-17-2016 02:48 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(03-17-2016 01:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Wonder what the number for Rice would be?

I'll guarantee this, if it were at or above the D-1 average, we wouldn't be having nearly the problems with athletic funding that we do currently. That's why turning basketball around is such a huge consideration.

What do you think the number is for, say, Gonzaga?

The figures may be outdated today, but here's a 2010 list of the basketball profits for D-1 schools: http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/18/news/com...l_profits/

Code:

School    Revenues     Expenses   Profit/(Loss)   Margin

Gonzaga  4,075,750    3,053,437     1,022,313      25.1%
Rice     3,522,202    4,634,331    (1,112,129)    -31.6%

Sum: 1,076,708,738  795,651,053   281,057,685      26.1%

Why am I not surprised that you found this?

I'd hazard a wild guess that Gonzaga's revenues are significantly higher today and ours are not. And I would guess that our increased expenses are largely due to higher scholarship costs. We might have had more travel costs too, although I would guess that with national exposure Gonzaga's travel costs have gone up too.

But just taking things at face value, that's a $2 million plus difference on the bottom line. When we worry about some of the things that we do, $2 million would help a heck of a lot.

This reminds me of the fact that the average Geology Major who graduated from the University of North Carolina makes over $400,000 per year.

Big lurking variable: Michael Jordan majored in Geology.

How can we bill the players for the $300k?
Since we've had so many transfers, I suggest we try to get as much up front as possible.

This should solve a few funding problems in the athletics department.

(03-17-2016 07:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-17-2016 02:48 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(03-17-2016 01:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Wonder what the number for Rice would be?

I'll guarantee this, if it were at or above the D-1 average, we wouldn't be having nearly the problems with athletic funding that we do currently. That's why turning basketball around is such a huge consideration.

What do you think the number is for, say, Gonzaga?

The figures may be outdated today, but here's a 2010 list of the basketball profits for D-1 schools: http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/18/news/com...l_profits/

Code:

School    Revenues     Expenses   Profit/(Loss)   Margin

Gonzaga  4,075,750    3,053,437     1,022,313      25.1%
Rice     3,522,202    4,634,331    (1,112,129)    -31.6%

Sum: 1,076,708,738  795,651,053   281,057,685      26.1%

Why am I not surprised that you found this?

I'd hazard a wild guess that Gonzaga's revenues are significantly higher today and ours are not. And I would guess that our increased expenses are largely due to higher scholarship costs. We might have had more travel costs too, although I would guess that with national exposure Gonzaga's travel costs have gone up too.

But just taking things at face value, that's a $2 million plus difference on the bottom line. When we worry about some of the things that we do, $2 million would help a heck of a lot.

Gonzaga is still an expensive school (80 to 85 percent the cost of Rice).