Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
Author Message
gulfcoastgal Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,862
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 318
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:
Post: #1
USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
Updated for 2018/2019

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances

Wonder how long it'll take for some to get back to these levels given current conditions? I'd take a vaccine and/or reliable treatment over college sports any day of the week, but the timing really stinks for Memphis as the Tigers were poised to capitalize on the NY6 run.
07-16-2020 01:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


GoldenWarrior11 Online
All American
*

Posts: 3,484
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 266
I Root For: Marquette, BE
Location: Chicago
Post: #2
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
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.
07-16-2020 01:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 42,412
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1507
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #3
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
Top 8:
SEC-3
Big 10-3
Big 12-2

Top 20:
SEC-10
Big 10-6
Big 12-2
ACC-2
07-16-2020 01:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 24,935
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 2606
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #4
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
(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.
(This post was last modified: 07-16-2020 02:19 PM by JRsec.)
07-16-2020 02:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TexanMark Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,894
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 899
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Gulfport, FL
Post: #5
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
(07-16-2020 01:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  Top 8:
SEC-3
Big 10-3
Big 12-2

Top 20:
SEC-10
Big 10-6
Big 12-2
ACC-2

Missing all the Private School Data...Duke, Notre Dame, Miami and Syracuse all at about $100M and above revenue
07-16-2020 03:10 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 24,935
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 2606
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #6
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
(07-16-2020 03:10 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  
(07-16-2020 01:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  Top 8:
SEC-3
Big 10-3
Big 12-2

Top 20:
SEC-10
Big 10-6
Big 12-2
ACC-2

Missing all the Private School Data...Duke, Notre Dame, Miami and Syracuse all at about $100M and above revenue

Only Notre Dame makes the top 10. And of the remaining ACC (other than FSU) only Louisville makes the top 20. Miami and Clemson would have fallen in the low 20's but would have missed the top 20. Duke at 116 million would have been around 30th. There weren't any other ACC schools that would have made the top 30.
(This post was last modified: 07-16-2020 03:45 PM by JRsec.)
07-16-2020 03:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,464
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 119
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #7
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
You can find all the individual school data, including for private schools, at the following U.S. Department of Education Equity in Athletics online database:

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/search

EDIT: Looks like only year-end 2018 or 6/30 2019 information at the above link (depends on the school).
(This post was last modified: 07-16-2020 03:58 PM by YNot.)
07-16-2020 03:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 16,920
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 744
I Root For: California
Location: TROS
Post: #8
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
(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 G5 revenue ceiling is much lower than the budget ceiling due to the subsidies (i.e., money from the university used to cover the difference between expenses and revenues).

If we don't count subsidies, then revenue by the USA Today data, is actually just ticket sales + donations + "rights/licensing". USA Today has UConn and UCF each at about $35 million by this measure, Boise State and Cincinnati are each at about $31 million. By comparison, the lowest-ranked P5 school by this measure of revenue is Washington State at $61 million.

G5 schools that are at real revenue of $25 million plus are doing pretty well considering that they don't have P5 media revenue, except that the massive amount of subsidy might not last going forward, given the serious economic damage the pandemic is inflicting on every university's overall revenues and budgets.
07-16-2020 04:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 24,935
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 2606
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #9
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
(07-16-2020 04:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(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 G5 revenue ceiling is much lower than the budget ceiling due to the subsidies (i.e., money from the university used to cover the difference between expenses and revenues).

If we don't count subsidies, then revenue by the USA Today data, is actually just ticket sales + donations + "rights/licensing". USA Today has UConn and UCF each at about $35 million by this measure, Boise State and Cincinnati are each at about $31 million. By comparison, the lowest-ranked P5 school by this measure of revenue is Washington State at $61 million.

G5 schools that are at real revenue of $25 million plus are doing pretty well considering that they don't have P5 media revenue, except that the massive amount of subsidy might not last going forward, given the serious economic damage the pandemic is inflicting on every university's overall revenues and budgets.

Right. Revenue might be the survival line rather than the dividing line and the lower 1/4th of the P5 are in jeopardy as well.
07-16-2020 04:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AztecEmpire Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 20
Joined: May 2020
Reputation: 5
I Root For: SDSU
Location:
Post: #10
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
James Madison to the AAC? Imagine if they had D1A FB money.
07-16-2020 05:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gulfcoastgal Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,862
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 318
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:
Post: #11
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
(07-16-2020 04:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-16-2020 04:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(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 G5 revenue ceiling is much lower than the budget ceiling due to the subsidies (i.e., money from the university used to cover the difference between expenses and revenues).

If we don't count subsidies, then revenue by the USA Today data, is actually just ticket sales + donations + "rights/licensing". USA Today has UConn and UCF each at about $35 million by this measure, Boise State and Cincinnati are each at about $31 million. By comparison, the lowest-ranked P5 school by this measure of revenue is Washington State at $61 million.

G5 schools that are at real revenue of $25 million plus are doing pretty well considering that they don't have P5 media revenue, except that the massive amount of subsidy might not last going forward, given the serious economic damage the pandemic is inflicting on every university's overall revenues and budgets.

Right. Revenue might be the survival line rather than the dividing line and the lower 1/4th of the P5 are in jeopardy as well.

Add in Memphis, "ticket sales + donations + rights/licensing"= $34,467,587. Highest G5 tix sold and contrib. (fanbase $) at $23,819,046...more than Oregon State, Washington State and Rutgers...within spitting distance of GA Tech. 2019/2020 attendance was higher so those numbers will be up, then Covid hit...
07-16-2020 05:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Stugray2 Online
All American
*

Posts: 3,209
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 240
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #12
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
Memphis revenue from basketball is much more significant than even that of Houston, Temple and Cincy (as in double). They are a Major in Basketball, top 20 in budget and only a bit lower in revenue.

Football the are upper middle of the American.
07-16-2020 05:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 42,412
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1507
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #13
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
(07-16-2020 03:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-16-2020 03:10 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  
(07-16-2020 01:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  Top 8:
SEC-3
Big 10-3
Big 12-2

Top 20:
SEC-10
Big 10-6
Big 12-2
ACC-2

Missing all the Private School Data...Duke, Notre Dame, Miami and Syracuse all at about $100M and above revenue

Only Notre Dame makes the top 10. And of the remaining ACC (other than FSU) only Louisville makes the top 20. Miami and Clemson would have fallen in the low 20's but would have missed the top 20. Duke at 116 million would have been around 30th. There weren't any other ACC schools that would have made the top 30.

Right. Arkansas is #20 at $138 million.
07-16-2020 06:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Statefan Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,528
Joined: May 2018
Reputation: 108
I Root For: .
Location:
Post: #14
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
(07-16-2020 05:32 PM)AztecEmpire Wrote:  James Madison to the AAC? Imagine if they had D1A FB money.

JMU's student fees are the reason the Virginia General Assembly changed the laws in Va to prevent anyone else from doing what JMU did.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/h...s-n1145171

$2300 a year at JMU
(This post was last modified: 07-16-2020 07:31 PM by Statefan.)
07-16-2020 07:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CliftonAve Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 16,435
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 625
I Root For: CinCity Pride
Location:
Post: #15
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
(07-16-2020 05:45 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Memphis revenue from basketball is much more significant than even that of Houston, Temple and Cincy (as in double). They are a Major in Basketball, top 20 in budget and only a bit lower in revenue.

Football the are upper middle of the American.

Memphis has a nice NBA arena and has much larger seating capacity. UC fills their arena near capacity (11,000-12,000). They probably could change a little more since the demand is there to increase the ticket revenue.
07-16-2020 07:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SkullyMaroo Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 7,395
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation: 179
I Root For: South Alabama
Location: Mobile
Post: #16
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
Pay the G5 the same TV money the P5 “floor” gets and I can’t help but think their subsidies would go way down. The networks and massive TV contracts completely changed college football, and a lot of schools are trying their hardest to keep up.
07-16-2020 08:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 24,935
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 2606
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #17
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
(07-16-2020 08:46 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  Pay the G5 the same TV money the P5 “floor” gets and I can’t help but think their subsidies would go way down. The networks and massive TV contracts completely changed college football, and a lot of schools are trying their hardest to keep up.

At first the pay was based on cable subscription fees with a benefit for advertising sold for the conference's games. The number of potential viewing households in a state were assumed in setting the rate. That due to the ability to know the number of subscribers turned into getting paid by actual subscribers which of course benefitted the network.

Technology started shifting so much that with the advent of streaming and a clearer focus exactly how many and who watches altered the pay models yet again and the focus became national telecasts with large audiences. So the payout model shifted away from the subscription fees (really only left for T3 conference networks) and toward a model built on actual viewers. This shift is going to separate the P5 more dramatically as time passes and the stresses on the low viewer schools in each conference is going to mount. For this reason the new contracts are taking into consideration the content drivers who play each other producing high national audience numbers of which the SEC leads the Big 10 by 1.1 million on average.

With streaming you will only get paid by the viewers.

I say this merely to point out that there is nothing on the horizon and nothing since 1982 to indicate there will ever be an even distribution of television revenue again. And prior to 1982 the only ones who got paid were those on television and guess what? ABC sports picked only the top schools back then. What you ask for simply doesn't exist.

One might argue that we are moving into the fairest pay model ever where schools are worth their viewers. But there is no way that model will ever favor schools with a limited alumni base and no national identity.

What it means, which many P5 fans don't yet grasp is further consolidation for the sake of larger payouts. Think 48 to 56 schools for starters.

And these are not my wishes. But it is likely where we are headed. Personally I would like a breakaway but one of 72 schools which would keep the win / loss ratio roughly the same. Instead we are likely headed for more of an NFL model with expanded playoffs and the eventual abandonment of most, but not all bowls.

And to be concretely clear it is not any of the P5 conferences driving this. It is the networks, and it has been the networks since 1983 when Oklahoma/Georgia vs the NCAA was decided. It took the networks a few years to realize that they had the power to rearrange but since then everyone has been dancing to the tune they play and for the coins they toss.
(This post was last modified: 07-16-2020 10:41 PM by JRsec.)
07-16-2020 08:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 16,920
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 744
I Root For: California
Location: TROS
Post: #18
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
(07-16-2020 08:46 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  Pay the G5 the same TV money the P5 “floor” gets and I can’t help but think their subsidies would go way down. The networks and massive TV contracts completely changed college football, and a lot of schools are trying their hardest to keep up.

No, TV contracts did not change everything.

There has always been a huge variance in revenue in college football, going back to before any of us were born. Do you think Ohio State and Ohio had the same-sized football budget in 1968? Of course not. There has always been enormous variation in ticket revenues -- not just the number of tickets sold, but the average price per ticket -- among college football programs, and often even larger variation in donations to athletic departments.

Also, we should be careful about using "P5" and "G5" too generally. When we're talking about revenue, it makes no sense to talk as if the athletic finances at Kent State are in the same boat as those at Cincinnati, just like it makes no sense to think of Washington and Washington State being in the same financial situation.

The only "parity" you would get by eliminating TV contracts as well as subsidies is between the top 10% of G5 budgets and the bottom 10% of P5 budgets. But that proves nothing other than this: There is a small number of G5 programs doing much better than the rest of G5 financially, and a few P5 programs whose finances are well below the P5 median. Even the lowest revenue programs in P5 are far ahead of the median G5 program revenue, and even the highest revenue G5 program is far behind the P5 median in revenue.
07-16-2020 10:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
the Rush Limbaugh of CSNBBS
*

Posts: 3,616
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 113
I Root For: p-natal vitamin
Location: prenatal vitamins
Post: #19
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
(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.

Southern Miss is also below 45%. However, my Troy Trojans are in a real pickle at 82.25%
07-17-2020 01:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wahoowa84 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 223
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 41
I Root For: UVa
Location:
Post: #20
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
(07-16-2020 02:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(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.

Some amount of “% of subsidy” is probably just a means of diversifying the revenue sources. Comparing the P5 conferences: it appears that BIG, SEC and B12 conference schools generally keep their athletic department revenues more separated from university finances...this allows WSJ valuations to look better in financial modeling (although it’s merely for hypotheticals of a breakaway...as if the university would spin-off a subsidiary). There are more ACC and PAC schools that likely use the general student fees method to manage a portion of their revenues.

As the financial repercussions of COVID are felt, all sources of revenues (e.g., media rights, ticket prices, donations, student fees, etc.) will be pinched. Having a more diversified portfolio of revenue sources may actually help some schools in the ACC and PAC...relative to the other P5 universities during this pandemic. If there is a strategic, long-term, decision to breakaway athletic departments (similar to university-affiliated health systems) for better branding and independence, then P5 universities that still rely on general student fees will likely need to transition to higher ticket fees for students.

What is worrisome is the financial health of athletic departments at G5 and FCS programs. For example, JMU and Delaware are extremely dependent on the general fee model.
07-17-2020 08:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2020 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, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.