SEC:

3. Alabama: $181,470,156
5. Georgia: $176,699,894
10. Florida: $157,240,476
11. Texas A&M: $152,971,142
13. Auburn: $147,620,572
15. Louisiana St.: $145,422,795
16. Tennessee: $142,686,084
18. South Carolina: $140,084,150
22. Arkansas: $132,545,645
25. Kentucky: $125,462,485
37. Mississippi: $99,157,535
46. Miss State: $93,752,613
47. Missouri: $93,744,322
58. Vanderbilt: $80,093,541
Grand Total $1,868,951,410
Average Per School: $133,496,529



Big 10:

2. Ohio State: $203,514,189
6. Michigan: $173,505,842
8. Penn State: $165,373,212
14. Wisconsin: $146,385,704
20. Iowa: $136,643,027
21. Nebraska: $136,624,256
27. Indiana: $121,217,287
28. Minnesota: $120,619,042
31. Michigan St.: $112,942,837
36. Purdue: $103,092,204
40. Maryland: $98,294,571
41. Illinois: $97,955,075
49. Northwestern: $92,274,339
61. Rutgers: $78,205,862
Grand Total: $1,786,647,447
Average Per School: $127,617,675




Big 12

1. Texas: $210,370,940
7. Oklahoma: $175,325,500
9. Kansas: $164,738,351
30. T.C.U.: $115,240,541
38. West Virginia: $98,851,233
42. Baylor: $95,214,007
44. Kansas State: $94,082,668
56. Oklahoma St.: $84,959,398
59. Texas Tech: $79,106,849
64. Iowa State: $71,856,869
Grand Total: $1,189,746,356
Average Per School: $118,974,636



PAC:

19. Stanford: $137,965,999
23. Cal Los Angeles: $130,960,560
24. Washington: $130,919,331
26. Arizona St.: $122,327,384
29. Southern Cal: $116,948,216
35. Oregon: $103,456,686
48. Arizona: $92,693,610
50. California: $90,695,900
52. Colorado: $89,822,527
53. Oregon St.: $88,600,331
57. Utah: $82,467,618
63. Washington St.: $73,466,115
Grand Total: $1,260,324,277
Average Per School: $105,027,023




ACC:

4. Florida State: $177,512,950
17. Louisville: $140,155,907
32. Clemson: $111,852,105
33. Duke: $108,585,925
34. Virginia: $105,486,203
39. North Carolina: $98,849,409
43. Miami: $94,723,980
45. Syracuse: $93,792,187
51. Pittsburgh: $89,926,268
54. N.C. State: $87,929,032
55. Virginia Tech: $86,334,972
60. Georgia Tech: $78,213,389
62. Boston College: $77,850,143
65. Wake Forest: $70,856,132
Grand Total: $1,422,068,602
Average Per School: $101,576,329

12. *Notre Dame: $149,508,530

I understand that it's a flawed way of comparing programs, as the level of donations vary depending on what the programs want to spend on during a particular year. It doesn't mean, though, that there aren't things that stand out.

Things of note:

- Clemson, even with winning two football championships in the past four years, is only a step above Duke and below "basketball schools" like Indiana and Kansas. Institutional profile is a factor as well as sports competitiveness. State flagships have advantages that public ivies don't have.

- More noted is the position of Virginia Tech, who is well below Virginia. It's little wonder that they're investing more in basketball.

- As the SEC's investment in basketball is paying off in a big way, they can feel good that their position isn't going to be seriously challenged.

- Florida State should be proud of themselves for finishing in the top 5. Not an easy feat.

- There seems to be a noted stratification within the Big 12. The top 3 all finished in the top 10 overall but then a big drop down all the way to 30 in the fourth position and then another drop between the 7th and 8th positions.

- The PAC's numbers would be decent if not for the internal troubles involving expenses and lack of distribution for their network.

The numbers are a little off, but what's really important but is not reported, is which schools are actually operating in the black.

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. — North Carolina’s athletic department surpassed $100 million in annual revenue and expenses for the first time during the 2017-18 fiscal year, finishing with a surplus of more than $2.1 million.

The data comes from the revenues and expenses report that the school submitted to the NCAA this month.

UNC finished the fiscal year, which ran from July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018, with total operating revenue of $104,571,404 and total operating expenses of $102,430,558. The numbers are increases from $96,551,626 in revenue and $96,540,823 in expenses — a surplus of $10,803 — for the 2016-17 fiscal year. UNC produced duplicate revenue and expense figures of $95,175,985 in 2015-16 after averaging $229,000 of surplus revenue per year in the four years prior to that.

https://247sports.com/college/north-caro...128024785/

(03-03-2019 07:10 AM)XLance Wrote:  The numbers are a little off, but what's really important but is not reported, is which schools are actually operating in the black.

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. — North Carolina’s athletic department surpassed $100 million in annual revenue and expenses for the first time during the 2017-18 fiscal year, finishing with a surplus of more than $2.1 million.

The data comes from the revenues and expenses report that the school submitted to the NCAA this month.

UNC finished the fiscal year, which ran from July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018, with total operating revenue of $104,571,404 and total operating expenses of $102,430,558. The numbers are increases from $96,551,626 in revenue and $96,540,823 in expenses — a surplus of $10,803 — for the 2016-17 fiscal year. UNC produced duplicate revenue and expense figures of $95,175,985 in 2015-16 after averaging $229,000 of surplus revenue per year in the four years prior to that.

https://247sports.com/college/north-caro...128024785/

The numbers for everyone came from the Equity in Athletics site are are taken directly from tax records.

(03-03-2019 11:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-03-2019 07:10 AM)XLance Wrote:  The numbers are a little off, but what's really important but is not reported, is which schools are actually operating in the black.

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. — North Carolina’s athletic department surpassed $100 million in annual revenue and expenses for the first time during the 2017-18 fiscal year, finishing with a surplus of more than $2.1 million.

The data comes from the revenues and expenses report that the school submitted to the NCAA this month.

UNC finished the fiscal year, which ran from July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018, with total operating revenue of $104,571,404 and total operating expenses of $102,430,558. The numbers are increases from $96,551,626 in revenue and $96,540,823 in expenses — a surplus of $10,803 — for the 2016-17 fiscal year. UNC produced duplicate revenue and expense figures of $95,175,985 in 2015-16 after averaging $229,000 of surplus revenue per year in the four years prior to that.

https://247sports.com/college/north-caro...128024785/

The numbers for everyone came from the Equity in Athletics site are taken directly from tax records.

Hail X-Lance and JR!

I believe it is actually a survey form, submitted on-line to the Department of Education. The recent government shutdown prevented the earlier upload of the survey data on to the Equity in Athletics site.

Cheers,
Neil

(03-03-2019 07:10 AM)XLance Wrote:  The numbers are a little off, but what's really important but is not reported, is which schools are actually operating in the black.

I take all of these numbers with a grain of salt, but I would be even more skeptical about claims of "profit". If an organization is making a profit in a year, it means one of these.

1) The profit (revenue in excess of spending) is distributed back to its shareholders. (University athletic departments don't issue stock to shareholders. Not yet, anyway.)

2) The profit is deposited or invested in the form of savings, like Apple stashing billions in Irish banks to avoid U.S. taxes. (Don't think athletic departments are doing this, either, except perhaps with small amounts of money, and even so that would still fall into the next category.)

3) The profit is either carried forward to be spent in the next year, or used to pay off debts from previous years. (Possible.)

If an athletic department is claiming profit, it's most likely that they are excluding some of their expenses from the revenue/expenses calculation and the result is that it looks like revenue is greater than expenses.

And, of course, though this doesn't apply to most P5 programs, any revenue vs. expenses discussion is only meaningful if you're looking at an athletic department's "real revenue", i.e., not counting "revenue" that comes from university funds and/or student fees.

(03-03-2019 12:33 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(03-03-2019 11:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-03-2019 07:10 AM)XLance Wrote:  The numbers are a little off, but what's really important but is not reported, is which schools are actually operating in the black.

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. — North Carolina’s athletic department surpassed $100 million in annual revenue and expenses for the first time during the 2017-18 fiscal year, finishing with a surplus of more than $2.1 million.

The data comes from the revenues and expenses report that the school submitted to the NCAA this month.

UNC finished the fiscal year, which ran from July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018, with total operating revenue of $104,571,404 and total operating expenses of $102,430,558. The numbers are increases from $96,551,626 in revenue and $96,540,823 in expenses — a surplus of $10,803 — for the 2016-17 fiscal year. UNC produced duplicate revenue and expense figures of $95,175,985 in 2015-16 after averaging $229,000 of surplus revenue per year in the four years prior to that.

https://247sports.com/college/north-caro...128024785/

The numbers for everyone came from the Equity in Athletics site are taken directly from tax records.

Hail X-Lance and JR!

I believe it is actually a survey form, submitted on-line to the Department of Education. The recent government shutdown prevented the earlier upload of the survey data on to the Equity in Athletics site.

Cheers,
Neil

Well it wasn't there earlier this year and when I checked it last night it was. I took all of the numbers straight from the Equity in Athletics site. I didn't notice any difference in the data listed over the previous year. It's possible they got the numbers from another source but I didn't notice any comments on the site to indicate that. Besides this info is always a year in arrears since this fiscal year won't end until June.

But anyway a few things of note to the board:

1. All of the P conferences except one experienced an increase of revenue based on the EIA numbers of 2017-8 over their numbers for 2016-7. That conference was the SEC which was affected by two anomalies. Texas A&M had revenue gifts for the renovation of Kyle Field that were still being reported in 2016-7. Those numbers in that year were impacted by 50 million in gifts. Second, Ole Miss's probation hurt donations on 2017-8 and they had no bowl revenue. Ole Miss took a hit of 19 million. The other 12 SEC schools were up a little or down a little depending upon the fortunes of performance but as an average had a slight increase.

2. Florida State jumped way up. 38 million of that was non specified revenue. The bulk of that was very likely the Fisher buyout courtesy of Texas A&M.

3. Kansas took a bigger climb to the top than did FSU. Again revenue received for a major renovation of the football facilities was likely the difference.

4. The P conference with the largest leap was the Big 10 when their 50.1 TV revenues kicked in for 2017-8 under their FOX contract.

The ACC and PAC had bumps that kept them pretty much in the same place. Take away the big hike in Kansas's revenue and the Big 12 would have received essentially about the same bump as the ACC and PAC.

Everything else looked pretty much the same.

Information reported under Equity In Athletics auspices does not come from tax records, and there is no statutory requirement that the information agree with or be reconciled with any tax reports sent to the IRS. These reports are mandated by the Department of Education by the Equity In Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) of 1994. This law requires that all coeducational colleges and universities that participate in a federally funded financial aid program and have intercollegiate varsity level sports teams provide certain gender equity information for their athletic programs.

Specifically, schools must provide information on:

Sports teams and participation by gender
Athletic scholarship dollars awarded to female and male athletes
Average salaries of head and assistant coaches for men's and women's teams
Number of head and assistant coaches for women's and men's teams
Recruitment expenses for female and male athletes
Revenues for women's and men's teams
Operating expenses for women's and men's teams
Overall expenses for women's and men's teams

You can see a pattern here. This is one of the tools the DOE can use to monitor compliance with the requirements of Title IX. The Department of Education has no interest in how profitable any school's athletic department is.

The biggest reason these reports are often cited by media sources and possibly even the NCAA itself is that revenue information about private colleges and universities is included. The FOIA enables us to look at federally mandated reports required of public universities that include revenue and expense reports, including some information provided to the IRS. But it doesn't enable us to look at that same data for private schools. The EADA bridges that gap, enabling us to engage in our pathological need to rank everything.

So, if EADA data is vague, or even purposely misleading, regarding overall revenue and expense reporting, it's because that info is of no concern to the Department of Education. They only care about Title IX.

Student fees transferred in as revenue is also counted as revenue whereas in the private sector you would not show that as revenue.

For many of the schools the way they handle debt service, buyouts, payments back to the University, etc., can skew the results. If you run a capital project through the regular budget you are usually bringing forward loan proceeds and showing them as a revenue and expenses in the same year whereas the actual debt service runs out over 20-40 years.

Some schools are politically prohibited from showing a "profit". Some have a problem showing a defacto "loss". Depends on the internal and state politics.

IIRC the only big Student Fee transfers in the P-5 are at Rutgers, then MD.

(03-03-2019 02:48 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  - Florida State should be proud of themselves for finishing in the top 5. Not an easy feat.

Even when they were below .500 for the first time in a long time (excluding a winless season due to vacating wins when nobody at the time knew that would happen), they had plenty of games on broadcast TV, so they probably get better ratings than other P5 schools that were much better on the field.

I searched for Jimbo Fisher's buyout payment to FSU and this is what I found:

Quote:When A&M hired Fisher away from Florida State in December 2017, the Seminoles got paid, because Fisher’s deal had a buyout clause in it.
It cost the Aggies about $5 million to FSU to hire him away.

source: https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...m-contract

and this from when his last contract with FSU was signed...

Quote:Buyout if Fisher leaves: If he elects to leave, Fisher’s buyout is now the sum of all monies remaining on the contracts of his assistant coaches not retained by the university.

So, for example, if Fisher leaves, and the university retains none of ten coaches each making $500,000 on one-year deals, Fisher would owe the school $5M within 30 days. Given that many assistants are employed on two- or three-year contracts, it’s likely that this buyout number could be in the $10-15M range...

Buyout if FSU wants to terminate: Fisher would be owed the entirety of the contract — 20 weeks worth paid for by the school, and the remainder by the Boosters.

As an example, If FSU wanted to go in a new direction six years down the line, and the two option extensions have been triggered, it would cost the school/boosters roughly $22M to buy him out in 2022.

source: https://www.tomahawknation.com/florida-s...rida-state

Apparently most of Fisher's assistants were on the last year of their contracts when he left FSU?

So most of the FSU increase remains a mystery (for now).

(03-04-2019 08:15 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I searched for Jimbo Fisher's buyout payment to FSU and this is what I found:

Quote:When A&M hired Fisher away from Florida State in December 2017, the Seminoles got paid, because Fisher’s deal had a buyout clause in it.
It cost the Aggies about $5 million to FSU to hire him away.

source: https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...m-contract

and this from when his last contract with FSU was signed...

Quote:Buyout if Fisher leaves: If he elects to leave, Fisher’s buyout is now the sum of all monies remaining on the contracts of his assistant coaches not retained by the university.

So, for example, if Fisher leaves, and the university retains none of ten coaches each making $500,000 on one-year deals, Fisher would owe the school $5M within 30 days. Given that many assistants are employed on two- or three-year contracts, it’s likely that this buyout number could be in the $10-15M range...

Buyout if FSU wants to terminate: Fisher would be owed the entirety of the contract — 20 weeks worth paid for by the school, and the remainder by the Boosters.

As an example, If FSU wanted to go in a new direction six years down the line, and the two option extensions have been triggered, it would cost the school/boosters roughly $22M to buy him out in 2022.

source: https://www.tomahawknation.com/florida-s...rida-state

Apparently most of Fisher's assistants were on the last year of their contracts when he left FSU?

So most of the FSU increase remains a mystery (for now).

The accounting mystery just shows the fallacy of those numbers. If Florida State had SEC monies, it would have swamped Alabama by $30 Million?

(03-03-2019 12:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-03-2019 07:10 AM)XLance Wrote:  The numbers are a little off, but what's really important but is not reported, is which schools are actually operating in the black.

I take all of these numbers with a grain of salt, but I would be even more skeptical about claims of "profit". If an organization is making a profit in a year, it means one of these.

1) The profit (revenue in excess of spending) is distributed back to its shareholders. (University athletic departments don't issue stock to shareholders. Not yet, anyway.)

2) The profit is deposited or invested in the form of savings, like Apple stashing billions in Irish banks to avoid U.S. taxes. (Don't think athletic departments are doing this, either, except perhaps with small amounts of money, and even so that would still fall into the next category.)

3) The profit is either carried forward to be spent in the next year, or used to pay off debts from previous years. (Possible.)

If an athletic department is claiming profit, it's most likely that they are excluding some of their expenses from the revenue/expenses calculation and the result is that it looks like revenue is greater than expenses.

And, of course, though this doesn't apply to most P5 programs, any revenue vs. expenses discussion is only meaningful if you're looking at an athletic department's "real revenue", i.e., not counting "revenue" that comes from university funds and/or student fees.

Interesting view and each of the options is possible. My hope for SU's two consecutive years of a $10 million plus net revenue has to do with the third option.

The general consensus of the reverse situation where total revenue and total expenses equal each other (which is the case for the vast majority of reporting institutions) indicate the institution actually suffered a loss. I have no idea how they are able to fudge this. Perhaps you have some valuable insight such as the above?

Cheers,
Neil

(03-04-2019 08:15 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I searched for Jimbo Fisher's buyout payment to FSU and this is what I found:

Quote:When A&M hired Fisher away from Florida State in December 2017, the Seminoles got paid, because Fisher’s deal had a buyout clause in it.
It cost the Aggies about $5 million to FSU to hire him away.

source: https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...m-contract

and this from when his last contract with FSU was signed...

Quote:Buyout if Fisher leaves: If he elects to leave, Fisher’s buyout is now the sum of all monies remaining on the contracts of his assistant coaches not retained by the university.

So, for example, if Fisher leaves, and the university retains none of ten coaches each making $500,000 on one-year deals, Fisher would owe the school $5M within 30 days. Given that many assistants are employed on two- or three-year contracts, it’s likely that this buyout number could be in the $10-15M range...

Buyout if FSU wants to terminate: Fisher would be owed the entirety of the contract — 20 weeks worth paid for by the school, and the remainder by the Boosters.

As an example, If FSU wanted to go in a new direction six years down the line, and the two option extensions have been triggered, it would cost the school/boosters roughly $22M to buy him out in 2022.

source: https://www.tomahawknation.com/florida-s...rida-state

Apparently most of Fisher's assistants were on the last year of their contracts when he left FSU?

So most of the FSU increase remains a mystery (for now).

It seems improbable to me that FSU would be on the hook for any assistants he took with him to A&M. Only those he left behind that weren't retained by his successor. Did he take any?

Near as I can tell from a quick internet search, Fisher took three coaches with him (Tim Brewster TE, Dameyune Craig WR, and Jay Graham RB). DT Coach Odell Haggins was retained by Willie Taggart at FSU.

That means about six assistants were bought out by FSU, including all coordinators. So, between what A&M paid to FSU for Fisher's buyout and what FSU paid to buy out assistants, it was pretty close to a wash - no megabucks one way or the other.

(03-04-2019 12:23 PM)ken d Wrote:  Near as I can tell from a quick internet search, Fisher took three coaches with him (Tim Brewster TE, Dameyune Craig WR, and Jay Graham RB). DT Coach Odell Haggins was retained by Willie Taggart at FSU.

That means about six assistants were bought out by FSU, including all coordinators. So, between what A&M paid to FSU for Fisher's buyout and what FSU paid to buy out assistants, it was pretty close to a wash - no megabucks one way or the other.

After being an instrumental part in recruiting Texas A&M's top 5 recruiting class, Tim Brewster left A&M to re-join Mack Brown at Carolina.