Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

**JRsec** · 07-16-2020 02:10 PM

(07-16-2020 01:49 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: Some notes:

The P5 budgetary "Floor" is right at about $80 million (Washington State is only school below that at $76 million).
The G5 budgetary "Ceiling" is right around $70 million (UConn is at $80 million, but their budget and expenses will likely drop a bit with their move to the Big East and cuts to sports, and Houston/UCF/Cincinnati in the upper $60 million-range).
UCF/Cincinnati, IMO, are in a much "healthier" spot than, say, Houston, because they have a lower % of subsidies funding athletics. Houston is at 64%, ECU is at 62% and USF is at 58%; UCF and Cincinnati are at/below 45%.
The programs that are at 70% or higher in subsidies are in big trouble, IMO, especially in a pandemic. Athletic programs will not be able to continue getting as much funding as they once were to sponsor select sports, and - even with cuts - it doesn't really solve the spending issue. Akron, as discussed in another thread, is in very unfortunate shape (and they have 69% subsidy for athletics).

The P5, while losing money this upcoming year and beyond, are best situated to weather the storm and survive moving forward because of their ability to continue offering sports and getting paid in TV revenue to hold events. The G5, even if able to hold sports, won't have the sustainable TV revenue to keep things going. I think it will be a substantial red flag if any of the G5 programs are unable to go this Fall. They are barely above water to begin with and COVID might submerge it to the point where a majority are unable to get back up.

I've been watching this annual report for sometime. It is not as complete as that you can put together from Equity in Athletics because this report lists no private schools.

However, this report plainly lists the % of subsidy (apportioned) revenue that supports the programs of each state school. This figure is what I look for each year as I have been watching a weakening across the board in college athletics because of the rising subsidy levels that eventually will force state legislatures to reign in.

Of particular importance is the point of demarcation between the 51st position occupied by Oregon State and all schools 52nd and below. Notice the dramatic rise in the subsidy levels to maintain sports at these schools.

This without question is the dividing line between the P5 and the G5 schools that can be visibly seen in this report. In the Past no P5 was subsidized higher than 20% and no G5 lower than 25%.

Notice the weakening in the P5 centered around Maryland, Rutgers, and Arizona all at 20% or higher. I believe Rutgers was the only one in this position a year ago. But note also that next year both Maryland and Rutgers should receive a full share of Big Ten revenue and it will be interesting to see how much that full share decreases their subsidies.

Most of the P5 which are subsidized at 3% or less are clinging to old student fees to offset ticket costs for the students, but the P5's are wealthy enough now I would like to see these practices done away with. There is little excuse for a P5 school to need a subsidy at all.

Where the G5's are concerned in healthy years you can watch the growing programs progress by the decrease in the amounts of their subsidies. Programs that can get their subsidy level under 25% should be considered for P5 upward mobility. Programs operating with more than a 50% subsidy should look at the number of sports they are offering and the cost of them. All schools should be making more effort toward eliminating waste including P5 programs.

But these are the numbers from this report which are the best indicators of the success or decline of a program regardless of their conference affiliation.

Threaded Mode \| Linear Mode USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
Author	Message