Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
2016 NCAA Athletic Department Revenue for the P5 and the next 15 Highest G5
Author Message
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 12,222
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 355
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #11
RE: 2016 NCAA Athletic Department Revenue for the P5 and the next 15 Highest G5
(03-18-2017 02:19 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Tulane at more "revenue" than Houston or Cincy tells you all you need to know about these numbers.


It is probably more representative of budgets than revenues.


Private schools have much higher tuition costs than state schools. Tuition costs affect budget size.

I think it's unlikely that any athletic department at any school, public or private, is giving a check to the university general fund in the amount of (athletic scholarships) x (tuition that would be paid if each scholarship athlete paid full price). Full price at most top private schools is between $40,000 and 50,000/year. Most FBS schools are giving out the equivalent of about 200 full scholarships. (Stanford is at the high end and claims it's about 300 for them.)

For a private university giving out 200, at $45,000 per that would mean a check for $9 million every year going from the athletic department accounts into the university general fund. Is that happening? Or are athletic departments merely entering that amount on their books on both the expense side and revenue side, with no money moving from one account to another?
03-18-2017 03:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,294
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 662
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #12
RE: 2016 NCAA Athletic Department Revenue for the P5 and the next 15 Highest G5
(03-18-2017 02:26 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(03-18-2017 02:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-18-2017 01:37 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(03-18-2017 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-18-2017 12:59 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  This is the third thread I've seen, in what feels like the last two weeks, of people posting almost identical OP's with regard to the newly updated 2015-16 reporting year data on the EiA database ....

The data is for 2016-7 Bison. The USAToday report probably won't be available until the end of this month or the first of April.

Last year the SEC earned about 6 or 7 million more than the Big 10 on average. It's nearly 13 million this year. Plus one of the interesting parts of the analysis related to the Big 10 is that the bottom teams slipped in earnings the top teams increased, and the middle's improvement was slight.

The SEC schools with the exception of Missouri and Mississippi State all moved up. Georgia didn't move up as much.

This is 15-16 info and he's correct there's multiple posts

Affirmative it is 15-16 figures, but they are revised over what was released last April by other services.

As to multiple posts there are two. The focus of this one was comparative. The other is informational.

15-16 year wouldn't have been complete last April. And if you're going to be comparative you should include the top 16 G5 schools.

There's no point. The revenue drops below 40 million after those I listed. Besides I included the top 13. Really the break of significance is around the 66 to 67th position. That's more or less the Mendoza line for consideration. When a P conference like the ACC or PAC has a mean of 87,000,000 or 89,000,000 million there really isn't anyone out there other than perhaps UConn or remotely B.Y.U. that could merit inclusion. The idea being of course that you have to be able to add to someone's bottom line to get the invite. With the market model fast collapsing in favor of content multiplier additions Connecticut and B.Y.U. will distance themselves even more from the others, IMO.

And as to the site we used here no it would not have been complete. But USAToday and others will jump the gun with early numbers that are incomplete. And if you wait and watch they will do it again this year. Those are frequently the ones that get the most attention around here, and then in June they are usually revised but with much less fanfare since you have to check by conference and school at the more reliable sites (too much work for the average poster).
03-18-2017 03:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CougarRed Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,346
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 265
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #13
RE: 2016 NCAA Athletic Department Revenue for the P5 and the next 15 Highest G5
(03-18-2017 03:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(03-18-2017 02:19 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Tulane at more "revenue" than Houston or Cincy tells you all you need to know about these numbers.


It is probably more representative of budgets than revenues.


Private schools have much higher tuition costs than state schools. Tuition costs affect budget size.

I think it's unlikely that any athletic department at any school, public or private, is giving a check to the university general fund in the amount of (athletic scholarships) x (tuition that would be paid if each scholarship athlete paid full price). Full price at most top private schools is between $40,000 and 50,000/year. Most FBS schools are giving out the equivalent of about 200 full scholarships. (Stanford is at the high end and claims it's about 300 for them.)

For a private university giving out 200, at $45,000 per that would mean a check for $9 million every year going from the athletic department accounts into the university general fund. Is that happening? Or are athletic departments merely entering that amount on their books on both the expense side and revenue side, with no money moving from one account to another?

Tuition is an expense item. Not a revenue item. Go to the website where the OP got his numbers and you will see that $17M of SMU's $57M budget is for scholarships. Compare UH at $7M in athlete tuition.

Now, I doubt SMU athletics makes out a check for $17M to the school.

Rather, what happens is this: all the expenses are added together, including athlete tuition and cost of attendance along with coaching salaries, etc. All the revenues from outside sources and student fees are added together (ticket sales, donations, licensing, conference revenues, student fees etc.).

The difference is the amount of the school subsidy of the athletic department.

I agree with you that accounting for athlete's tuition is kind of bogus in this regard: it doesn't cost much to have an extra 400 kids going to classes that would already be held in their absence. The marginal cost is almost nil aside from room and board.

So it's a bit unfair that the athletic department has to count the full value of tuition for each athlete as an expense item. And it inflates the "subsidy" needlessly.

But those are the rules of the game.
(This post was last modified: 03-18-2017 05:06 PM by CougarRed.)
03-18-2017 05:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Online
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 5,741
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 353
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #14
RE: 2016 NCAA Athletic Department Revenue for the P5 and the next 15 Highest G5
(03-18-2017 03:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-18-2017 02:26 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(03-18-2017 02:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-18-2017 01:37 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(03-18-2017 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The data is for 2016-7 Bison. The USAToday report probably won't be available until the end of this month or the first of April.

Last year the SEC earned about 6 or 7 million more than the Big 10 on average. It's nearly 13 million this year. Plus one of the interesting parts of the analysis related to the Big 10 is that the bottom teams slipped in earnings the top teams increased, and the middle's improvement was slight.

The SEC schools with the exception of Missouri and Mississippi State all moved up. Georgia didn't move up as much.

This is 15-16 info and he's correct there's multiple posts

Affirmative it is 15-16 figures, but they are revised over what was released last April by other services.

As to multiple posts there are two. The focus of this one was comparative. The other is informational.

15-16 year wouldn't have been complete last April. And if you're going to be comparative you should include the top 16 G5 schools.

There's no point. The revenue drops below 40 million after those I listed. Besides I included the top 13. Really the break of significance is around the 66 to 67th position. That's more or less the Mendoza line for consideration. When a P conference like the ACC or PAC has a mean of 87,000,000 or 89,000,000 million there really isn't anyone out there other than perhaps UConn or remotely B.Y.U. that could merit inclusion. The idea being of course that you have to be able to add to someone's bottom line to get the invite. With the market model fast collapsing in favor of content multiplier additions Connecticut and B.Y.U. will distance themselves even more from the others, IMO.

And as to the site we used here no it would not have been complete. But USAToday and others will jump the gun with early numbers that are incomplete. And if you wait and watch they will do it again this year. Those are frequently the ones that get the most attention around here, and then in June they are usually revised but with much less fanfare since you have to check by conference and school at the more reliable sites (too much work for the average poster).

I was just being a smartass about the number 16 G5 school because it's Old Dominion, which interestingly enough reported 43 million in the prior period. The drop is likely due to accounting changes in the state of VA. But you're wrong about the USA Today database. As we discussed in the other budget thread they get thier numbers from the NCAA reporting done by schools and as far as I know haven't released 15-16 numbers. Last April they released 14-15.
03-18-2017 05:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,294
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 662
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #15
RE: 2016 NCAA Athletic Department Revenue for the P5 and the next 15 Highest G5
(03-18-2017 05:15 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(03-18-2017 03:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-18-2017 02:26 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(03-18-2017 02:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-18-2017 01:37 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  This is 15-16 info and he's correct there's multiple posts

Affirmative it is 15-16 figures, but they are revised over what was released last April by other services.

As to multiple posts there are two. The focus of this one was comparative. The other is informational.

15-16 year wouldn't have been complete last April. And if you're going to be comparative you should include the top 16 G5 schools.

There's no point. The revenue drops below 40 million after those I listed. Besides I included the top 13. Really the break of significance is around the 66 to 67th position. That's more or less the Mendoza line for consideration. When a P conference like the ACC or PAC has a mean of 87,000,000 or 89,000,000 million there really isn't anyone out there other than perhaps UConn or remotely B.Y.U. that could merit inclusion. The idea being of course that you have to be able to add to someone's bottom line to get the invite. With the market model fast collapsing in favor of content multiplier additions Connecticut and B.Y.U. will distance themselves even more from the others, IMO.

And as to the site we used here no it would not have been complete. But USAToday and others will jump the gun with early numbers that are incomplete. And if you wait and watch they will do it again this year. Those are frequently the ones that get the most attention around here, and then in June they are usually revised but with much less fanfare since you have to check by conference and school at the more reliable sites (too much work for the average poster).

I was just being a smartass about the number 16 G5 school because it's Old Dominion, which interestingly enough reported 43 million in the prior period. The drop is likely due to accounting changes in the state of VA. But you're wrong about the USA Today database. As we discussed in the other budget thread they get thier numbers from the NCAA reporting done by schools and as far as I know haven't released 15-16 numbers. Last April they released 14-15.

If these are the most current then it doesn't matter then does it?
03-18-2017 05:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
oliveandblue Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,449
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 89
I Root For: Tulane
Location:
Post: #16
RE: 2016 NCAA Athletic Department Revenue for the P5 and the next 15 Highest G5
The AAC has done wonders for the development of our athletic program. It's almost incredible that Tulane is at #69 nationally after decades of ignoring their program.
03-18-2017 07:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bigdog731 Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 18
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 9
I Root For: Tigers
Location:
Post: #17
RE: 2016 NCAA Athletic Department Revenue for the P5 and the next 15 Highest G5
I think the great divide is in the overall subsides the schools outside of the G5 receive in terms of percentage of athletic budget. Those numbers are absolutely staggering. The G5 (for the most part) schools could trim fat and run with zero subsidies if it were to actually ever come to that...the ones outside of the G5 would be in big trouble without the subsidy.
03-18-2017 08:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,294
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 662
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #18
RE: 2016 NCAA Athletic Department Revenue for the P5 and the next 15 Highest G5
(03-18-2017 08:37 PM)Bigdog731 Wrote:  I think the great divide is in the overall subsides the schools outside of the G5 receive in terms of percentage of athletic budget. Those numbers are absolutely staggering. The G5 (for the most part) schools could trim fat and run with zero subsidies if it were to actually ever come to that...the ones outside of the G5 would be in big trouble without the subsidy.

It wouldn't affect many of the top 25 or 30, but there are definitely some in the second tier of the P conferences it might affect. And it depends on what a subsidy is. Athletic attendance fees paid by students so that they can buy $5 football tickets doesn't account for that much at the SEC schools that show a subsidy, and in our conference that's what the subsidy usually is. Alumni have to donate between $800-$1200 just for the privilege of buying a pair of season tickets at $550 each in the end zones and in the ends of the upper decks. The minimum contribution is even more for better seating groups and we aren't even talking sky boxes (start at $100,000) or scholarship or half scholarship seating.
03-18-2017 09:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,294
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 662
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #19
RE: 2016 NCAA Athletic Department Revenue for the P5 and the next 15 Highest G5
(03-18-2017 07:43 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  The AAC has done wonders for the development of our athletic program. It's almost incredible that Tulane is at #69 nationally after decades of ignoring their program.

And given your market and AAU status if that keeps improving it could yet bode well for further advancement.
03-18-2017 09:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bigdog731 Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 18
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 9
I Root For: Tigers
Location:
Post: #20
RE: 2016 NCAA Athletic Department Revenue for the P5 and the next 15 Highest G5
(03-18-2017 09:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-18-2017 08:37 PM)Bigdog731 Wrote:  I think the great divide is in the overall subsides the schools outside of the G5 receive in terms of percentage of athletic budget. Those numbers are absolutely staggering. The G5 (for the most part) schools could trim fat and run with zero subsidies if it were to actually ever come to that...the ones outside of the G5 would be in big trouble without the subsidy.

It wouldn't affect many of the top 25 or 30, but there are definitely some in the second tier of the P conferences it might affect. And it depends on what a subsidy is. Athletic attendance fees paid by students so that they can buy $5 football tickets doesn't account for that much at the SEC schools that show a subsidy, and in our conference that's what the subsidy usually is. Alumni have to donate between $800-$1200 just for the privilege of buying a pair of season tickets at $550 each in the end zones and in the ends of the upper decks. The minimum contribution is even more for better seating groups and we aren't even talking sky boxes (start at $100,000) or scholarship or half scholarship seating.

This is kinda what i'm talking about. Like UCONN for instancem 38% of the budget is subsidized in some fashion. The schools outside of the G5 are totally dependent on those subsides..I suspect most of this model is entirely different than what the G5 subsides are. I'm sure raising student fees is basically a large part the subsidy is....some of these athletic budgets are 40/60/70% subsidized. Least that an educated guess...I guess what i'm saying is the great divide is when some are below 10% and other are at and way above 40%.

Not sure what year this is but within the last 3 I think. Nothing much, if at all, would have changed since then in terms of the percentages. The figures are staggering I think.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
(This post was last modified: 03-18-2017 09:32 PM by Bigdog731.)
03-18-2017 09:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.