2012 Michigan AD Budget vs. Michigan State

Submitted by kakusei on

So after hearing about MSU's Mark Hollis complaining at MSED about his apparent lack of budget, it was surprising to see this article in this week's issue of SBJ

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/08/22/In-Depth/Budgets.aspx?hl=Athletic%20Department%20Budgets&sc=0 (Paywall)

In a feature story on college atheltics (which is very interesting from the 'brand' perspective...), SBJ lays out the AD budgets for all schools in major conferences.  Of note is the big ten, where Michigan ranks second behind only Ohio State.  

2012 Big Ten AD Budgets

1.) Ohio State - 126.5 Million

2) Michigan - 109.8 Million

3) Penn State - 92.0 Million

4) Wisconsin - 88.1 Million

5) Nebraska - 79.1 Million 

6) Michigan State - 78.8 Million

7) Minnesota - 78.6 Million

8) Iowa - 74.9 Million

9) Illinois - 70.2 Million

10) Purdue - 68.7 Million

11) Indiana - 61.5 Million

12) Northwestern - N/A

 

So Mr. Hollis does in fact have at least half of UM's AD budget (though its still a fairly significant gap). 

Other interseting takeaways:

- Michigan's AD budget growth over the three year period (FY2010 - FY2012) was 29.8% (84.6 Million to 109.8 Million), which does prove that the big house renovations are really paying off

- Michigan's AD budget is the third largest in the country, behind only Texas (153.5 Million!), and Ohio State (126.5 Million).

- Every school in the Big Ten has experienced posive budget growth over the three year period.

Lastly, here's a great article on the success of branding in college athletics, which is sure to piss everyone off.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/08/22/In-Depth/Branding.aspx

 

kakusei

August 23rd, 2011 at 2:16 PM ^

Actually, if you look at M's growth by 29.8% over the past three years compared to the other BigTen schools, there is quite a discrepancy, with most schools experiencing only about 9% growth and Purdue (19.9%), Indiana (11.0%), and Iowa (14.2%) the only schools in double digit growth (Ohio State only recorded 7.1% growth in that same period of time.   I may be wrong here but dont all schools recieve the same share from BTN? If that is the case it would be a moot point as far as growth is concerned.  

Quail2theVict0r

August 23rd, 2011 at 2:22 PM ^

But you have to add in "profit". That's the amount that the school takes in - but how much does MSU have to spend, of that money, supporting it's other (likely unprofitable) sports outside of maybe basketball. I know Michigan is one of the most profitable schools, a list that was released in the winter some time. It's likely that a lot of that money is spent on just keeping their other sports afloat.

jmblue

August 23rd, 2011 at 2:31 PM ^

Michigan's AD budget growth over the three year period (FY2010 - FY2012) was 29.8% (84.6 Million to 109.8 Million), which does prove that the big house renovations are really paying off

Budgets reflect expenditures, not necessarily revenue streams.  That growth is largely explained by us paying for the stadium renovation (we still owe something like $160M), the basketball practice facility, and the Crisler renovation.  The new structures in the stadium will allow us to pay for the renovations faster than we otherwise could have, but they're not making us money  (jn the sense of net gain) right now.  It will take several more years before we pay off the stadium construction bill.

lexus larry

August 23rd, 2011 at 2:34 PM ^

Seems to be more about building a brand where there was none, in an inorganic manner, with flash and lazers and diamond-plate.

I wonder who the AD talked to when shopping the contract for all the uni's, seeing as adidas wasn't considered the next best bet to take on NIKE...and whether UMBRO was considered for the opp...

Fort Wayne Blue

August 23rd, 2011 at 3:26 PM ^

I read a couple of years ago that ND had the #2 AD budget in the country .... any idea of their budget? 

 

The only question was how much of TSIO's budget is for cars & tattoos???

psychomatt

August 23rd, 2011 at 4:08 PM ^

Budgets can be a bit misleading. Some people budget conservatively and some budget aggressively. A budget generally is just a projection or authorization.

The U.S. Dept. of Education collects actual numbers each year. Some schools have a fiscal year that ends in June. Others have one that ends in August. So, the numbers for 2010-2011 are not available yet. But the numbers for 2009-2010 can be accessed through a publicly available website. The numbers for the latest period, 2010-2011, should be available in a few weeks.

Here is a list of the top programs. I had to pull them out team-by-team, so it's possible I skipped over someone who belongs on this list. I am pretty sure I included all the obvious ones.

Three quick things. One, Michigan did not have all of its premium seating sold during most of this period. You should expect our numbers to increase $4-5 million solely for that reason in the numbers for the coming year. Second, some schools support more sports than others. OSU is a perfect example. It has the third highest revenues but its revenues are also higher, resulting in a lower surplus. Finally, numbers can fluctuate wildly from year to year, especially if a team wins a national championship in football. Both Alabama and Auburn have benefited from this in recent years.

Top Athletic Dept's ($ in MM)    
(FY 2009 - 2010)      
       
    Rev Surplus
TX B12      143.6       29.6
ALA SEC      129.3       44.0
OSU B10      123.1       18.2
FLA SEC      116.5       11.3
MICHIGAN B10      106.7       24.5
PSU B10      106.6       26.4
OK B12       98.7       10.1
WISC B10       93.9         3.8
AUB SEC       92.6         1.7
LSU SEC       90.9         1.7
ND INDEP       90.9       15.0
GA SEC       88.0       11.7
MSU B10       80.0       18.5
USC P12       75.7           -  
ORE P12       75.4         9.8
FSU ACC       75.2           -  
NEB B10       73.5         5.0
TA&M B12       71.9         2.7
OK ST B12       65.6         5.4

(a) Source: Equity in Athletics (U.S. Dept. of Ed.).

(b) Accounting can vary from school to school. For example, if a building is donated, the value might or might not be included in these numbers. Also, it's unclear if interest on borrowings is consistently included in these numbers by all schools.

4roses

August 23rd, 2011 at 4:01 PM ^

I don't want to turn all this branding/marketing talk into a "black and white" (figuratively) "Us vs. Them" issue, but I am definitely in the "anti" marketing/branding camp.  The article linked is a prime example of my frustration. The article implies that noone knew where Oregon was, and therefore their football team sucked. Then, Nike gave them a bunch of "flashy" uniforms and suddenly everyone knew where they were, especially all the elite high school football players! Not only did they suddenly know where Oregon was, they wanted to go play football for them and as a result the football team got really good. Yeah Marketing!!! I'm guessing that Mike Bellotti and Chip Chip Kelly might have a bit of a different take on what happened at Oregon.