Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
Author Message
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,454
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 578
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #1
Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
Top G5 programs minus the "institutional robbery" of student fees and transfers, as derived from the USA Today data Attackcoog posted. This is revenue actually generated by the athletic department.

The AAC has 4 of the top 5, with UConn comfortably at #1, but surprisingly, to me, west coast schools are well-represented, with 5 of the top 11, moreso than the overall revenue figures would indicate. Reason? western schools don't use the truly massive $20m+ subsidies that the AAC schools use. IMO, this reveals the hidden strength of west coast schools in deriving athletic revenues.

As an aside, this also reveals the weakness of my USF: In the official chart, USF is #8 in G5 athletic revenue. But once institutional transfers are deleted, we fall to #15. This is embarrassing for a school that was in the Big Boy club for 9 years. It especially sucks given UCF's relative strength, and UCF hasn't been getting the extra Big East money that we have been getting. Houston also takes a tumble, checking in at #5 on the USA Today list but #13 here.

1) UCONN ..... $44 million

2) Cincy ....... $35 million

3) Boise ........ $34 million

4) UCF .......... $33 million

5) Memphis ... $32 million

6) Army ........ $31 million

7) New Mexico .... $30 million

8) SDSU ............. $30 million

9) Arkansas St ..... $30 million

10) UNLV ............... $28 million

11) Hawaii ............. $27 million

12) ECU ................ $27 million

13) Houston .......... $26 million

14) Fresno ............ $25 million

15) USF ................ $24 million
(This post was last modified: 07-06-2017 06:37 PM by quo vadis.)
07-06-2017 06:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,374
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 942
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
One thing Im noticing is that some schools apparently count capital spending in their annual budgets and some do not. That potentially creates some massive problems when comparing budgets. Just as an example (and because Im very familiar with the situation), Houston currently has roughly 80 million in capital athletics projects underway (basketball arena renovation and new IPF). Of that amount, about 50 million of it is funded by private donations. If these expenditures were included, Houston's numbers would reflect a budget of over 100 million and it would probably sit at the top of your list of budgets minus student fees and transfers. Not only that, but the total capital expenditures for UH since 2013 add up to over a quarter of a billion--the majority of which is derived from private donations. So this category would have affected almost every years budget at UH since 2013.

Im not saying we dont have some pretty ugly institutional support numbers---but it is worth noting that when comparing budget numbers, there are alot of moving parts that can vastly affect the picture these numbers paint.
(This post was last modified: 07-06-2017 06:55 PM by Attackcoog.)
07-06-2017 06:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,454
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 578
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #3
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
(07-06-2017 06:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing Im noticing is that some schools apparently count capital spending in their annual budgets and some do not. That potentially creates some massive problems when comparing budgets. Just as an example, Houston currently has about 80 million in capital athletics projects underway. Of that amount, about 50 million of it is funded by private donations. If these expenditures were included, Houston numbers would reflect a budget of over 100 million and it would probably sit at the top of your list of budgets minus student fees and transfers. Not only that, but the capital expenditures for UH since 2013 is well over a quarter of a billion--more than half of which is all private donations. So it would have affected almost every year since 2013.

I don't know how USA Today accounts for capital projects. I guess they don't include them either, otherwise Houston would be way above the $51 million in overall revenue they list them at. I guess in their way of reckoning, such things don't count.

As a USF fan, this list is really sobering to me. Schools like Hawaii and Arkansas State are generating a lot more athletic dollars than we are. That is pretty sad.
07-06-2017 06:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,374
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 942
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
(07-06-2017 06:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-06-2017 06:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing Im noticing is that some schools apparently count capital spending in their annual budgets and some do not. That potentially creates some massive problems when comparing budgets. Just as an example, Houston currently has about 80 million in capital athletics projects underway. Of that amount, about 50 million of it is funded by private donations. If these expenditures were included, Houston numbers would reflect a budget of over 100 million and it would probably sit at the top of your list of budgets minus student fees and transfers. Not only that, but the capital expenditures for UH since 2013 is well over a quarter of a billion--more than half of which is all private donations. So it would have affected almost every year since 2013.

I don't know how USA Today accounts for capital projects. I guess they don't include them either, otherwise Houston would be way above the $51 million in overall revenue they list them at. I guess in their way of reckoning, such things don't count.

As a USF fan, this list is really sobering to me. Schools like Hawaii and Arkansas State are generating a lot more athletic dollars than we are. That is pretty sad.

I know for a fact that Arky State and A&M are counting those capital projects. Oregon did the same thing a year or two ago when they finished on top of the list over schools like Texas and Ohio St. I know we do not. Cant really say beyond those few schools.
(This post was last modified: 07-06-2017 07:15 PM by Attackcoog.)
07-06-2017 06:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,454
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 578
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #5
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
(07-06-2017 06:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-06-2017 06:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-06-2017 06:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing Im noticing is that some schools apparently count capital spending in their annual budgets and some do not. That potentially creates some massive problems when comparing budgets. Just as an example, Houston currently has about 80 million in capital athletics projects underway. Of that amount, about 50 million of it is funded by private donations. If these expenditures were included, Houston numbers would reflect a budget of over 100 million and it would probably sit at the top of your list of budgets minus student fees and transfers. Not only that, but the capital expenditures for UH since 2013 is well over a quarter of a billion--more than half of which is all private donations. So it would have affected almost every year since 2013.

I don't know how USA Today accounts for capital projects. I guess they don't include them either, otherwise Houston would be way above the $51 million in overall revenue they list them at. I guess in their way of reckoning, such things don't count.

As a USF fan, this list is really sobering to me. Schools like Hawaii and Arkansas State are generating a lot more athletic dollars than we are. That is pretty sad.

I know for a fact that Arky State and A&M are counting those capital projects. I know we do not. Cant really say beyond those 3.

I had assumed that USA Today was using their own methodology, such that schools lack the power to manipulate their numbers. If all they are doing is compiling data the schools report to them, using their own methods, then the list is far less useful to us.
07-06-2017 07:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,374
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 942
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
Over a period of years, its probably a pretty decent indicator of whats going on. When a school makes a huge jump in a single year---its probably a tip off that a major cap project likely is behind the increase. For UH, it would have skewed the figures for several years in a row---but thats largely because we under-spent on cap items for an extended period---so we are basically playing catch up. Its fairly atypical.
(This post was last modified: 07-06-2017 07:12 PM by Attackcoog.)
07-06-2017 07:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 21,366
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 613
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
In watching the USA Today numbers over the years, I suspect not counting capital projects would make a school an extreme outlier. My observation is schools count it but how they count it tends to reflect how they paid for them. If borrowing they tend to allocate over the life of the loan.
07-06-2017 07:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,052
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 124
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #8
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
capital expenses are not revenues they are expenses which is why they are called expenses

in the case of A&M and Oregon specifically they are counting those REVENUES related to those projects in those years because those years were the years the MONEY ACTUALLY CAME TO THE SCHOOL

they are not trying to call an expense as revenue and then claiming that expense as revenue

if you have a large project for $50 million and the money (donations) for that project come in over 20 years at $2.5 million per year then you do not just pick some random year to count that $50 million dollar EXPENSE as REVENUE

you would represent the REVENUE each year it is collected

you could pick a random year to have that EXPENSE as a BUDGET EXPENSE, but unless the REVENUE came in to match that EXPENSE you would just have a large deficit in that particular year when you counted the EXPENSE

the USA Today breaks it all down if you click on the individual schools and they do it for several years

in the case of a program like Oregon and A&M they are not going to pay that expense all in one year even if they get a large amount of revenue in a single year they are going to place that money in their investment account and hope to earn 7% or 8% while they pay 3% or 4% on construction bonds

so each year they will have that (hoped for) 7% or 8% as new REVENUE and they will have the annualized EXPENSE of paying for those bonds.....if donations fall short some years or if they earn under the 3% or 4% bond interest and the cost of bond payments they will dip into the corpus of the money they set aside from those years when they took in $90 million or $75 million in donations

in the case of a program that does not bring in near the same amount of donations and that is not getting a very large single donation or a number of large donations in a few years they will simply bond out their project and hope the pledged money comes in each year and count that as revenue and then directly pay the expense of those bonds that same year with the yearly donations

if revenues/donations fall short they will dip further into academic money

so how you treat your EXPENSES is not related to how your REVENUES show up yearly other than if you get enough large donations a couple of years to put some away into an investment account hoping it generates enough money to pay the principle payments and the interest or at least comes close to that
07-06-2017 07:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,181
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 339
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #9
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
Arkansas St has been doing something right....I must admit I'm impressed and surprised
07-06-2017 07:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 21,366
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 613
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
(07-06-2017 07:35 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  capital expenses are not revenues they are expenses which is why they are called expenses

in the case of A&M and Oregon specifically they are counting those REVENUES related to those projects in those years because those years were the years the MONEY ACTUALLY CAME TO THE SCHOOL

they are not trying to call an expense as revenue and then claiming that expense as revenue

if you have a large project for $50 million and the money (donations) for that project come in over 20 years at $2.5 million per year then you do not just pick some random year to count that $50 million dollar EXPENSE as REVENUE

you would represent the REVENUE each year it is collected

you could pick a random year to have that EXPENSE as a BUDGET EXPENSE, but unless the REVENUE came in to match that EXPENSE you would just have a large deficit in that particular year when you counted the EXPENSE

the USA Today breaks it all down if you click on the individual schools and they do it for several years

in the case of a program like Oregon and A&M they are not going to pay that expense all in one year even if they get a large amount of revenue in a single year they are going to place that money in their investment account and hope to earn 7% or 8% while they pay 3% or 4% on construction bonds

so each year they will have that (hoped for) 7% or 8% as new REVENUE and they will have the annualized EXPENSE of paying for those bonds.....if donations fall short some years or if they earn under the 3% or 4% bond interest and the cost of bond payments they will dip into the corpus of the money they set aside from those years when they took in $90 million or $75 million in donations

in the case of a program that does not bring in near the same amount of donations and that is not getting a very large single donation or a number of large donations in a few years they will simply bond out their project and hope the pledged money comes in each year and count that as revenue and then directly pay the expense of those bonds that same year with the yearly donations

if revenues/donations fall short they will dip further into academic money

so how you treat your EXPENSES is not related to how your REVENUES show up yearly other than if you get enough large donations a couple of years to put some away into an investment account hoping it generates enough money to pay the principle payments and the interest or at least comes close to that

Exactly. If you are spending $10 million in the year to build something because you have an extra $10 million from whatever source it goes on the books as $10 million more in expense and $10 million more in revenue.

If you take a 10 year note that requires 10 payments of $1 million each, you expense the note payments to the year the payment is made.

Now if Joe Supporter gives you $5 million to pay it you can show that as revenue in the year received or turn it over to your foundation to manage and only count it on the books as revenue when it is withdrawn.

In University land it is my observation that Joe Supporter's $5 million will be carried on the booster club account and only appear in the athletic department books when the booster club cuts the annual check to help pay the loan.
07-06-2017 07:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,181
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 339
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #11
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
(07-06-2017 06:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing Im noticing is that some schools apparently count capital spending in their annual budgets and some do not. That potentially creates some massive problems when comparing budgets. Just as an example (and because Im very familiar with the situation), Houston currently has roughly 80 million in capital athletics projects underway (basketball arena renovation and new IPF). Of that amount, about 50 million of it is funded by private donations. If these expenditures were included, Houston's numbers would reflect a budget of over 100 million and it would probably sit at the top of your list of budgets minus student fees and transfers. Not only that, but the total capital expenditures for UH since 2013 add up to over a quarter of a billion--the majority of which is derived from private donations. So this category would have affected almost every years budget at UH since 2013.

Im not saying we dont have some pretty ugly institutional support numbers---but it is worth noting that when comparing budget numbers, there are alot of moving parts that can vastly affect the picture these numbers paint.

So you are saying that Colorado St building their new 200 million or whatever football stadium could somehow count that as revenue? That would be highly dishonest. (I'm not saying they are doing that) Schools constantly build new facilities, venues etc. A school on the Kentucky/Ohio border just built a fabulous new basketball arena that Cincinnati will play in this year. I don't think anyone counts that venue investment as revenue, until they start making revenue on it by selling tics, parking, concessions etc
07-06-2017 08:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

gulfcoastgal Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,231
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 127
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:
Post: #12
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
(07-06-2017 06:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Top G5 programs minus the "institutional robbery" of student fees and transfers, as derived from the USA Today data Attackcoog posted. This is revenue actually generated by the athletic department.

The AAC has 4 of the top 5, with UConn comfortably at #1, but surprisingly, to me, west coast schools are well-represented, with 5 of the top 11, moreso than the overall revenue figures would indicate. Reason? western schools don't use the truly massive $20m+ subsidies that the AAC schools use. IMO, this reveals the hidden strength of west coast schools in deriving athletic revenues.

As an aside, this also reveals the weakness of my USF: In the official chart, USF is #8 in G5 athletic revenue. But once institutional transfers are deleted, we fall to #15. This is embarrassing for a school that was in the Big Boy club for 9 years. It especially sucks given UCF's relative strength, and UCF hasn't been getting the extra Big East money that we have been getting. Houston also takes a tumble, checking in at #5 on the USA Today list but #13 here.

1) UCONN ..... $44 million

2) Cincy ....... $35 million

3) Boise ........ $34 million

4) UCF .......... $33 million

5) Memphis ... $32 million

6) Army ........ $31 million

7) New Mexico .... $30 million

8) SDSU ............. $30 million

9) Arkansas St ..... $30 million

10) UNLV ............... $28 million

11) Hawaii ............. $27 million

12) ECU ................ $27 million

13) Houston .......... $26 million

14) Fresno ............ $25 million

15) USF ................ $24 million

After quickly glancing through this list, Boise, Memphis and New Mexico appear to be the only schools that generated more money from their fan bases than they received from the school in 15/16. Ticket Sales + Contributions > Student Fees + School Funds
07-06-2017 08:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
otown Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,803
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 45
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #13
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
(07-06-2017 06:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-06-2017 06:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing Im noticing is that some schools apparently count capital spending in their annual budgets and some do not. That potentially creates some massive problems when comparing budgets. Just as an example, Houston currently has about 80 million in capital athletics projects underway. Of that amount, about 50 million of it is funded by private donations. If these expenditures were included, Houston numbers would reflect a budget of over 100 million and it would probably sit at the top of your list of budgets minus student fees and transfers. Not only that, but the capital expenditures for UH since 2013 is well over a quarter of a billion--more than half of which is all private donations. So it would have affected almost every year since 2013.

I don't know how USA Today accounts for capital projects. I guess they don't include them either, otherwise Houston would be way above the $51 million in overall revenue they list them at. I guess in their way of reckoning, such things don't count.

As a USF fan, this list is really sobering to me. Schools like Hawaii and Arkansas State are generating a lot more athletic dollars than we are. That is pretty sad.

Does this have anything to do with the lack of an OCS?

Does USF have to rent the facility and pay fees to the city?

Just what are their expenses to use it?

Does all ticket revenue go to the school?

What about premium seats as I live in Orlando and received a big booklet from the Bucs trying to get me to buy into the new hall of fame club, which included admission to all USF games.

What about concessions?
07-06-2017 08:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,374
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 942
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #14
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
(07-06-2017 08:10 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(07-06-2017 06:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing Im noticing is that some schools apparently count capital spending in their annual budgets and some do not. That potentially creates some massive problems when comparing budgets. Just as an example (and because Im very familiar with the situation), Houston currently has roughly 80 million in capital athletics projects underway (basketball arena renovation and new IPF). Of that amount, about 50 million of it is funded by private donations. If these expenditures were included, Houston's numbers would reflect a budget of over 100 million and it would probably sit at the top of your list of budgets minus student fees and transfers. Not only that, but the total capital expenditures for UH since 2013 add up to over a quarter of a billion--the majority of which is derived from private donations. So this category would have affected almost every years budget at UH since 2013.

Im not saying we dont have some pretty ugly institutional support numbers---but it is worth noting that when comparing budget numbers, there are alot of moving parts that can vastly affect the picture these numbers paint.

So you are saying that Colorado St building their new 200 million or whatever football stadium could somehow count that as revenue? That would be highly dishonest. (I'm not saying they are doing that) Schools constantly build new facilities, venues etc. A school on the Kentucky/Ohio border just built a fabulous new basketball arena that Cincinnati will play in this year. I don't think anyone counts that venue investment as revenue, until they start making revenue on it by selling tics, parking, concessions etc

I dont know if they did or not. Looking at thier numbers I think its clear they did not. Some schools do. Some don't. On the other hand, I do know that UNLV counts all the convention revenue generated by the Thomas Mack Center (which hosts a lot of conventions) as athletics revenue. Because of its Vegas location, that convention/catering revenue is substantial (I'd guess half their revenue). It used to make more, but other venues have cut into their market share.
(This post was last modified: 07-06-2017 09:20 PM by Attackcoog.)
07-06-2017 09:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,201
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 180
I Root For: UC
Location: SD & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #15
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
(07-06-2017 06:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The AAC has 4 of the top 5, with UConn comfortably at #1, but surprisingly, to me, west coast schools are well-represented, with 5 of the top 11, moreso than the overall revenue figures would indicate. Reason? western schools don't use the truly massive $20m+ subsidies that the AAC schools use. IMO, this reveals the hidden strength of west coast schools in deriving athletic revenues.

This does not surprise me at all. Other than San Diego State and San Jose State, none of the MWC has competition from pro sports.

Also only 2 MWC schools are on the West Coast, so the MWC doesn't have the West Coast cultural indifference to sports. Even Fresno has more in common with Arkansas than it does with the beach communities and big cities on the West coast.
07-06-2017 09:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,889
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 333
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #16
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
(07-06-2017 07:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-06-2017 06:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-06-2017 06:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-06-2017 06:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing Im noticing is that some schools apparently count capital spending in their annual budgets and some do not. That potentially creates some massive problems when comparing budgets. Just as an example, Houston currently has about 80 million in capital athletics projects underway. Of that amount, about 50 million of it is funded by private donations. If these expenditures were included, Houston numbers would reflect a budget of over 100 million and it would probably sit at the top of your list of budgets minus student fees and transfers. Not only that, but the capital expenditures for UH since 2013 is well over a quarter of a billion--more than half of which is all private donations. So it would have affected almost every year since 2013.

I don't know how USA Today accounts for capital projects. I guess they don't include them either, otherwise Houston would be way above the $51 million in overall revenue they list them at. I guess in their way of reckoning, such things don't count.

As a USF fan, this list is really sobering to me. Schools like Hawaii and Arkansas State are generating a lot more athletic dollars than we are. That is pretty sad.

I know for a fact that Arky State and A&M are counting those capital projects. I know we do not. Cant really say beyond those 3.

I had assumed that USA Today was using their own methodology, such that schools lack the power to manipulate their numbers. If all they are doing is compiling data the schools report to them, using their own methods, then the list is far less useful to us.
I always go to the Equity in Athletics site because those are the raw numbers reported to the government.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
07-06-2017 09:58 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Fighting Muskie Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,067
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 37
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #17
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
I'm a little shocked to see Arkansas St on here. Are they doing some fancy accounting down there or something? It's odd that C-USA would pass up on a program with such a good financial footing then again all of their expansion moves have been about chasing markets.
07-06-2017 10:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 21,366
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 613
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #18
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
(07-06-2017 08:10 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(07-06-2017 06:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing Im noticing is that some schools apparently count capital spending in their annual budgets and some do not. That potentially creates some massive problems when comparing budgets. Just as an example (and because Im very familiar with the situation), Houston currently has roughly 80 million in capital athletics projects underway (basketball arena renovation and new IPF). Of that amount, about 50 million of it is funded by private donations. If these expenditures were included, Houston's numbers would reflect a budget of over 100 million and it would probably sit at the top of your list of budgets minus student fees and transfers. Not only that, but the total capital expenditures for UH since 2013 add up to over a quarter of a billion--the majority of which is derived from private donations. So this category would have affected almost every years budget at UH since 2013.

Im not saying we dont have some pretty ugly institutional support numbers---but it is worth noting that when comparing budget numbers, there are alot of moving parts that can vastly affect the picture these numbers paint.

So you are saying that Colorado St building their new 200 million or whatever football stadium could somehow count that as revenue? That would be highly dishonest. (I'm not saying they are doing that) Schools constantly build new facilities, venues etc. A school on the Kentucky/Ohio border just built a fabulous new basketball arena that Cincinnati will play in this year. I don't think anyone counts that venue investment as revenue, until they start making revenue on it by selling tics, parking, concessions etc

I would presume they borrowed money.
So every time they make a loan payment that is an athletic expense. Every dollar contributed, every new dollar in sponsorship or ticket sales used to make that payment is revenue.
07-06-2017 10:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 21,366
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 613
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #19
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
(07-06-2017 10:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'm a little shocked to see Arkansas St on here. Are they doing some fancy accounting down there or something? It's odd that C-USA would pass up on a program with such a good financial footing then again all of their expansion moves have been about chasing markets.

No fancy accounting. Some big one-time gifts to fund a new press box with suites, club seating and loge boxes.

For example the bank that had our naming rights deal was bought out. The new owner helped fund the renovation by paying the present value of the entire deal in a lump sum. The owner of the bank that bought the bank out, donated $5 million personally toward the renovation.

That plus other giving and first year payments on premium seating (7 year commitments) and new record season ticket sales boosted revenue nearly $15 million while school subsidy dropped by $1 million so budget goes up $14 million for the year.
07-06-2017 10:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,889
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 333
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #20
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
(07-06-2017 10:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'm a little shocked to see Arkansas St on here. Are they doing some fancy accounting down there or something? It's odd that C-USA would pass up on a program with such a good financial footing then again all of their expansion moves have been about chasing markets.
If memory serves me their numbers include capital projects.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
07-06-2017 10:26 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2018 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.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.