(07-22-2019 09:08 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-22-2019 08:20 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 07:20 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 03:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 10:46 AM)scoscox Wrote:  I find that a little surprising but believable. Cincinnati’s fan support for most of mick Cronin tenure for basketball wasn’t all that robust. Fans only really started coming back strongly last year. Football took a hit during tommy tubervilles era as well but is now coming back under fickell.

The numbers as reported don't support the idea that coaches or short term performance on the field or court have had any significant impact on ticket sales and donations. The 2017 number of $11.44 million is consistent with the average for the entire 13 year period reported ($11.25 million). I'm surprised that Cincy's numbers aren't better, but at some point you have to accept that one is what its record says it is.

And that's just it. Why would the 2017 number be the same as the average from 2004-2017? Both ticket prices and attendance rose a lot over that time. The last 3 years of the dataset, 2015-17, were the only years that UC had luxury boxes or premium seating.

In 2005 Cincinnati averaged 22,000/game. Until 2008 student football tickets were free at the gate with a swipe; you didn't even have to get them ahead of time because they never sold out.


Also, the USA Today numbers show that 2015 tickets & donations are about $2.1 million below 2013 and 2014. This is not possible.

In 2015, UC added 18 Suites (cost $100k/year), 3 mini-Suites (50k/year), 30 loges ($16-32k/year) and 1200 club seats (avg cost $2500/year) to the football stadium. The loges and Suites all sold out, and the club seats were at least 80% sold out, adding $4.6 million to revenue. Attendance also increased 30% in 2015.


So something is wrong with the data. If I had to guess, the income from the suites was not booked as ticket revenue or as an athletic donation; I think it was booked directly as a university donation and used to pay the debt service on the loan used to upgrade the stadium. The university actually had a huge incentive to do this: the faculty union (with the support of the local daily newspaper) raised a big stink about athletic funding when UC joined the Big East. So I think UC took every step possible to make athletic department spending look lower than our peers.

Agree the figures reported for Cincinnati are suspiciously "low". On top of all the things you mentioned, what about all the extra revenue for housing FC Cincinnati. They are paying a decent amount of rent+ a percentage of the game + a significant portion of the concession + some merch sold on campus + all the parking. FC Cincinnati has been averaging Twenty something thousand a game for a few years now.

Basen on attendance as reported by UC to the NCAA, they averaged 35,076 in 2010 and 28,434 in 2017. The 2018 numbers were a little better, rising to 30,519. I don't have the numbers going back to 2004.

Ken, the 5,000 in ticket sales from 2010 to 2017 were offset by the premium seating (and then some). UC had very few luxury boxes in 2010. In 2014 they re-opened a refurbished Nippert with In 2017 those luxury suites were selling for 100K (with a 10year commitment) and sold out. You also had the mini-founders suites that sound for $50K that sold out as well as a "party deck". The 5,000 seats in the peanut gallery missed out are peanuts compared to the additional revenue.

(07-21-2019 01:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 01:08 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(12-15-1974 01:58 PM)ken d Wrote:  Saying that the best G5 schools' fan support is only a little worse than the worst P5 schools isn't a great argument for "promoting" those G5 schools to the P5.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Better to compare apples to future apples.

For example, Utah was pretty steady at $12-13M in tickets/donations until they joined the Pac 12.

They immediately jumped to $18M in Year 1 and have grown steadily since.

The point is that schools can charge more for tickets and ask for more donations in a Power league.

Utah was already an extremely healthy athletic department before joining the Pac-12. Their annual athletic department deficit ("subsidy" or "total allocated" in the USA Today table) was only about 10-15% even when they were in the Mountain West. Their "real revenue" (reported revenue minus school subsidies and student fees) in 2009 was as high as anyone not in P5 at the time other than TCU. They were well positioned to make their athletic department even stronger, while many other schools would not be so well positioned.

Also, the increased ticket sales and donations are great for Utah itself, but the other Pac-12 schools don't get a single dime of that money. The only way the other conference members make money from the addition of a new member is if that addition increases the per-school payout from media rights. One could argue (and many have) that the Pac would be making more media money per school if they hadn't added Colorado and Utah. The 10-member Big 12 supports that argument -- the Pac-12 has more total conference revenue in gross dollars, but the Big 12 gives each of its schools a larger payout because dividing that money 10 ways is better than dividing it 12 ways. Comparing the two conferences makes it look like, in many ways, 10 > 12.

Colorado to Pac-10 was just one of those romances that was eventually going to come together, like TAMU and the SEC did.

Utah was a different thing. State with basically the same population as Arkansas, BYU holding the apparent majority of fan interest in the state, USU with a not insignificant share of local interest though clearly third in fan support.

To the credit of Utah they built a highly competitive program in a state that is no recruiting hotbed against tough competition within the MWC for talent and interest.

(07-22-2019 09:16 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(07-22-2019 09:08 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-22-2019 08:20 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 07:20 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 03:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  The numbers as reported don't support the idea that coaches or short term performance on the field or court have had any significant impact on ticket sales and donations. The 2017 number of $11.44 million is consistent with the average for the entire 13 year period reported ($11.25 million). I'm surprised that Cincy's numbers aren't better, but at some point you have to accept that one is what its record says it is.

And that's just it. Why would the 2017 number be the same as the average from 2004-2017? Both ticket prices and attendance rose a lot over that time. The last 3 years of the dataset, 2015-17, were the only years that UC had luxury boxes or premium seating.

In 2005 Cincinnati averaged 22,000/game. Until 2008 student football tickets were free at the gate with a swipe; you didn't even have to get them ahead of time because they never sold out.


Also, the USA Today numbers show that 2015 tickets & donations are about $2.1 million below 2013 and 2014. This is not possible.

In 2015, UC added 18 Suites (cost $100k/year), 3 mini-Suites (50k/year), 30 loges ($16-32k/year) and 1200 club seats (avg cost $2500/year) to the football stadium. The loges and Suites all sold out, and the club seats were at least 80% sold out, adding $4.6 million to revenue. Attendance also increased 30% in 2015.


So something is wrong with the data. If I had to guess, the income from the suites was not booked as ticket revenue or as an athletic donation; I think it was booked directly as a university donation and used to pay the debt service on the loan used to upgrade the stadium. The university actually had a huge incentive to do this: the faculty union (with the support of the local daily newspaper) raised a big stink about athletic funding when UC joined the Big East. So I think UC took every step possible to make athletic department spending look lower than our peers.

Agree the figures reported for Cincinnati are suspiciously "low". On top of all the things you mentioned, what about all the extra revenue for housing FC Cincinnati. They are paying a decent amount of rent+ a percentage of the game + a significant portion of the concession + some merch sold on campus + all the parking. FC Cincinnati has been averaging Twenty something thousand a game for a few years now.

Basen on attendance as reported by UC to the NCAA, they averaged 35,076 in 2010 and 28,434 in 2017. The 2018 numbers were a little better, rising to 30,519. I don't have the numbers going back to 2004.

Ken, the 5,000 in ticket sales from 2010 to 2017 were offset by the premium seating (and then some). UC had very few luxury boxes in 2010. In 2014 they re-opened a refurbished Nippert with In 2017 those luxury suites were selling for 100K (with a 10year commitment) and sold out. You also had the mini-founders suites that sound for $50K that sold out as well as a "party deck". The 5,000 seats in the peanut gallery missed out are peanuts compared to the additional revenue.

And the revenue numbers the OP references reflect that. Ticket revenues increased by about $1 million from 2010 to 2017. On the other hand, ticket sales were about $1 million more in 2011 than they were in 2017.

Also interesting is that from 2005 to 2017 contributions declined from $4.6 million to $4.0 million, while school funding increased by $21 million to $26.7 million.

(07-22-2019 10:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-22-2019 09:16 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(07-22-2019 09:08 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-22-2019 08:20 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 07:20 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  And that's just it. Why would the 2017 number be the same as the average from 2004-2017? Both ticket prices and attendance rose a lot over that time. The last 3 years of the dataset, 2015-17, were the only years that UC had luxury boxes or premium seating.

In 2005 Cincinnati averaged 22,000/game. Until 2008 student football tickets were free at the gate with a swipe; you didn't even have to get them ahead of time because they never sold out.


Also, the USA Today numbers show that 2015 tickets & donations are about $2.1 million below 2013 and 2014. This is not possible.

In 2015, UC added 18 Suites (cost $100k/year), 3 mini-Suites (50k/year), 30 loges ($16-32k/year) and 1200 club seats (avg cost $2500/year) to the football stadium. The loges and Suites all sold out, and the club seats were at least 80% sold out, adding $4.6 million to revenue. Attendance also increased 30% in 2015.


So something is wrong with the data. If I had to guess, the income from the suites was not booked as ticket revenue or as an athletic donation; I think it was booked directly as a university donation and used to pay the debt service on the loan used to upgrade the stadium. The university actually had a huge incentive to do this: the faculty union (with the support of the local daily newspaper) raised a big stink about athletic funding when UC joined the Big East. So I think UC took every step possible to make athletic department spending look lower than our peers.

Agree the figures reported for Cincinnati are suspiciously "low". On top of all the things you mentioned, what about all the extra revenue for housing FC Cincinnati. They are paying a decent amount of rent+ a percentage of the game + a significant portion of the concession + some merch sold on campus + all the parking. FC Cincinnati has been averaging Twenty something thousand a game for a few years now.

Basen on attendance as reported by UC to the NCAA, they averaged 35,076 in 2010 and 28,434 in 2017. The 2018 numbers were a little better, rising to 30,519. I don't have the numbers going back to 2004.

Ken, the 5,000 in ticket sales from 2010 to 2017 were offset by the premium seating (and then some). UC had very few luxury boxes in 2010. In 2014 they re-opened a refurbished Nippert with In 2017 those luxury suites were selling for 100K (with a 10year commitment) and sold out. You also had the mini-founders suites that sound for $50K that sold out as well as a "party deck". The 5,000 seats in the peanut gallery missed out are peanuts compared to the additional revenue.

And the revenue numbers the OP references reflect that. Ticket revenues increased by about $1 million from 2010 to 2017. On the other hand, ticket sales were about $1 million more in 2011 than they were in 2017.

Also interesting is that from 2005 to 2017 contributions declined from $4.6 million to $4.0 million, while school funding increased by $21 million to $26.7 million.

As someone who has been around UC athletics for all that time (and then some) I don't buy these numbers. There is no way we collect fewer dollars today than in 2005. In 2005 we had lost a large donor base after the firing of Bob Huggins. UC had corporate sponsors walk. It wasn't until the end of 2006 and into 2007 that the public at large was buying into the UC FB program.

(07-22-2019 09:08 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-22-2019 08:20 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 07:20 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 03:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 10:46 AM)scoscox Wrote:  I find that a little surprising but believable. Cincinnati’s fan support for most of mick Cronin tenure for basketball wasn’t all that robust. Fans only really started coming back strongly last year. Football took a hit during tommy tubervilles era as well but is now coming back under fickell.

The numbers as reported don't support the idea that coaches or short term performance on the field or court have had any significant impact on ticket sales and donations. The 2017 number of $11.44 million is consistent with the average for the entire 13 year period reported ($11.25 million). I'm surprised that Cincy's numbers aren't better, but at some point you have to accept that one is what its record says it is.

And that's just it. Why would the 2017 number be the same as the average from 2004-2017? Both ticket prices and attendance rose a lot over that time. The last 3 years of the dataset, 2015-17, were the only years that UC had luxury boxes or premium seating.

In 2005 Cincinnati averaged 22,000/game. Until 2008 student football tickets were free at the gate with a swipe; you didn't even have to get them ahead of time because they never sold out.


Also, the USA Today numbers show that 2015 tickets & donations are about $2.1 million below 2013 and 2014. This is not possible.

In 2015, UC added 18 Suites (cost $100k/year), 3 mini-Suites (50k/year), 30 loges ($16-32k/year) and 1200 club seats (avg cost $2500/year) to the football stadium. The loges and Suites all sold out, and the club seats were at least 80% sold out, adding $4.6 million to revenue. Attendance also increased 30% in 2015.


So something is wrong with the data. If I had to guess, the income from the suites was not booked as ticket revenue or as an athletic donation; I think it was booked directly as a university donation and used to pay the debt service on the loan used to upgrade the stadium. The university actually had a huge incentive to do this: the faculty union (with the support of the local daily newspaper) raised a big stink about athletic funding when UC joined the Big East. So I think UC took every step possible to make athletic department spending look lower than our peers.

Agree the figures reported for Cincinnati are suspiciously "low". On top of all the things you mentioned, what about all the extra revenue for housing FC Cincinnati. They are paying a decent amount of rent+ a percentage of the game + a significant portion of the concession + some merch sold on campus + all the parking. FC Cincinnati has been averaging Twenty something thousand a game for a few years now.

Based on attendance as reported by UC to the NCAA, they averaged 35,076 in 2010 and 28,434 in 2017. The 2018 numbers were a little better, rising to 30,519. I don't have the numbers going back to 2004.

http://www.ncaa.org/championships/statis...attendance

for whatever reason 2004 is screwed up

but 2003

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_r...e/2003.pdf

21,961 (down over 6,100)

2005

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_r...e/2005.pdf

22,423

(07-22-2019 11:13 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-22-2019 09:08 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-22-2019 08:20 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 07:20 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 03:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  The numbers as reported don't support the idea that coaches or short term performance on the field or court have had any significant impact on ticket sales and donations. The 2017 number of $11.44 million is consistent with the average for the entire 13 year period reported ($11.25 million). I'm surprised that Cincy's numbers aren't better, but at some point you have to accept that one is what its record says it is.

And that's just it. Why would the 2017 number be the same as the average from 2004-2017? Both ticket prices and attendance rose a lot over that time. The last 3 years of the dataset, 2015-17, were the only years that UC had luxury boxes or premium seating.

In 2005 Cincinnati averaged 22,000/game. Until 2008 student football tickets were free at the gate with a swipe; you didn't even have to get them ahead of time because they never sold out.


Also, the USA Today numbers show that 2015 tickets & donations are about $2.1 million below 2013 and 2014. This is not possible.

In 2015, UC added 18 Suites (cost $100k/year), 3 mini-Suites (50k/year), 30 loges ($16-32k/year) and 1200 club seats (avg cost $2500/year) to the football stadium. The loges and Suites all sold out, and the club seats were at least 80% sold out, adding $4.6 million to revenue. Attendance also increased 30% in 2015.


So something is wrong with the data. If I had to guess, the income from the suites was not booked as ticket revenue or as an athletic donation; I think it was booked directly as a university donation and used to pay the debt service on the loan used to upgrade the stadium. The university actually had a huge incentive to do this: the faculty union (with the support of the local daily newspaper) raised a big stink about athletic funding when UC joined the Big East. So I think UC took every step possible to make athletic department spending look lower than our peers.

Agree the figures reported for Cincinnati are suspiciously "low". On top of all the things you mentioned, what about all the extra revenue for housing FC Cincinnati. They are paying a decent amount of rent+ a percentage of the game + a significant portion of the concession + some merch sold on campus + all the parking. FC Cincinnati has been averaging Twenty something thousand a game for a few years now.

Based on attendance as reported by UC to the NCAA, they averaged 35,076 in 2010 and 28,434 in 2017. The 2018 numbers were a little better, rising to 30,519. I don't have the numbers going back to 2004.

http://www.ncaa.org/championships/statis...attendance

for whatever reason 2004 is screwed up

but 2003

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_r...e/2003.pdf

21,961 (down over 6,100)

2005

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_r...e/2005.pdf

22,423

The publicly available football attendance numbers are even less reliable than the various financial documents where we don't know the accounting practices applied.

Those numbers are straight from the stat sheet the school sends in after each game and they are used for no purpose other than creating that annual PDF.

The attendance numbers used for FBS compliance come from a report filed by the school in February.

Below are Cincinnati's official attendance figures going back to 1996
2018 Att. 2017 Att. 2016 Att. 2015 Att. 2014 Att. 2013 Att. 2012 Att. 2011 Att. 2010 Att. 2009 Att. 2008 Att. 2007 Att.
30,519 28,434 33,585 37,096 28,840 31,771 29,138 32,293 35,067 33,957 31,965 30,246

2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 average
20,373 22,423 21,255 21,961 28,071 21,836 20,952 19,784 24,135 19,533 24,254 27,282