Revenue & Expenses of Athletic Departments

Submitted by massblue on

ESPN has an interesting interactive database up where you can find ranking of athletic departments in a number of areas.  UM is #1-4 in almost all cathegories.  There are some interesting numbers there.  For example, UM collected one of the highest amounts for playing away games. Or Indiana received the most money from NCAA.  I do not think it is behind a paywall.

 

Link

pearlw

May 1st, 2014 at 4:23 PM ^

Away game revenue comes from neutral site game vs Bama.



Highest travel expenses? You know where that comes from - sending the band via charters to Dallas for the same game for 400-500k i recall.

NOLA Wolverine

May 1st, 2014 at 4:23 PM ^

Ohio State needs a new person to negotiate their "little sisters of the poor" pay outs. Appear to be more than doubling up most schools in that area. Wonder which school(s) took them to the cleaners. 

mGrowOld

May 1st, 2014 at 4:24 PM ^

We paid 8 million LESS to visiting teams than OSU?  And collected 4 million more from the NCAA & B1G?   How in the hell is that even possible?

Score one for Big Dave.  Suck that Gene Smith.

 

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

May 1st, 2014 at 4:27 PM ^

So Rutgers gets a subsidy of over $37 million from the school at large.

They received $9.5 million from their conference while Big Ten teams got about $28 million apiece.

I'm no math major, but it sounds like membership in the Big Ten will be worth $18.5 million more per year for them.  (I don't think they get the full slice right away - I think they have to ramp up for a couple years.  But regardless.)

Will their membership in the Big Ten be worth $18.5 million to every other Big Ten team?  Here's my out-of-my-ass SWAG on that: hell no.

So the Big Ten is here to save New Jersey taxpayers $18.5 million, and get nowhere near that in return.  Make Rutgers go away, please.

sadeto

May 1st, 2014 at 5:04 PM ^

It will happen, eventually. BTN is currently on the second highest FIOS tier. 

My folks spend the winter in Naples, FL, and BTN is on the lowest cable tier there. One look in the parking lot of their community shows why - license plates from MI, OH, WI, etc. It will happen in the tri-state area soon, Delaney may not get the number he wants but he'll get a number. 

rob f

May 1st, 2014 at 11:09 PM ^

As a dad, you're a MAN among little boys, making your daughter a float for her birthday----I bet you even held a parade so that her birthday float could be put to use!  What a Dad!

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

.

 

 

What?  You meant a Vernors float?  OK.  But you're still a great dad, 'cuz Vernors floats are awesome, too.

tbeindit

May 1st, 2014 at 5:22 PM ^

BTN is expected to get a new deal relatively soon that will generate each school about $44.5 million per year just for TV revenue.  Adding the New Jersey and New York markets is going to be a big profit to the conference.  Plus, if Rutgers has money to invest in facilities and coaches, they might not suck so much.

alum96

May 1st, 2014 at 4:38 PM ^

I'd take $10M less in revenue, or $10M more in costs to win 4 more football games annually.  I don't think anyone in Ohio is too damn worried about getting fleeced for a home game payout when they now average 1 or 2 loss seasons every year.

Zone Left

May 1st, 2014 at 4:52 PM ^

The numbers mask the profitability of football and basketball by lumping in all the other sports and associated expenses (and revenues).

CarrIsMyHomeboy

May 1st, 2014 at 4:58 PM ^

Numbers like these and historic wins/win% are just about the only traits separating us from everyone else with 7-6 or 8-5 records.



Granted these traits also *project* we'll eventually float again to the top, but like the words "probably" and "perhaps", "project" is nothing but a specific flavor of maybe.



I want to hang my hat on something more concrete than these hollow, elitist clouds. Something of (1) the present day (2) happening on football fields, for example.

bluesalt

May 1st, 2014 at 10:35 PM ^

People have been arguing for a la carte pricing for at least 20 years now.



The only way it happens is if the Time Warner-Comcast deal is approved on the condition of a la carte pricing being provided by the combined entity. Cable providers have been quite clear that they maximize profits by channel bundles. The FCC isn't going to make an a la carte rule. Too much effort, and too likely to go through a lengthy challenge in federal courts.



Furthermore, the B1G probably won't be screwed by a la carte pricing should it for some reason come to pass. Live sports subsidizes home and garden TV, and not the other way around. Maybe BTN will suffer a little, but there will be more, not less, money flowing to ESPN, and the B1G will get a cut of that revenue.

ak47

May 2nd, 2014 at 10:51 AM ^

Why are people so convinced a la carte tv will be cheaper and thus more in demand?  Unless you plan on getting just the big channels like abc, nbc, etc. most of the cable channeles don't have enough to draw viewers in to keep the cost of the channel down.  ESPN would probably wind up costing $20 by itself just to pay off its contracts, channels like USA would probably go under and cable companies will probably create bundled deals to keep them alive, or you know, the current cable structure.

Also Maryland might not pack its football stadium but it has enough pull in the region to get BTN on basic cable in the baltimore/dc metro area which is the 4th largest in the country, so they are worth it and even if Rutgers can't pull NYC new jersey is still one of the most populas states in the country, with a larger tv market than mizzou or nebraska.

ThadMattasagoblin

May 1st, 2014 at 5:04 PM ^

I doubt they'll care about colege sports like we care about college sports at Maryland and Rutgers because of the pro sports in the area to top off the fact that their athletic departments suck.

bluebyyou

May 1st, 2014 at 5:12 PM ^

Anyone else wondering why OSU brings in so much more than Michigan with their ticket sales in a smaller stadium.  I'd hate to have to pay their ticket prices.

Can anyone explain Wisconsin's 58 million in contributions and donations?  No. 1 of all the teams.  

sadeto

May 1st, 2014 at 5:18 PM ^

There are a lot of problems with these numbers, must have to do with the way schools are lumping things together. Texas has $25 million in "game day expenses". Must be per diems for the football players and their families. No other program is even close. OSU has a million in "media rights" and Michigan has zero, yet they're in the same conference with the same media deal (except for 3rd tier, I guess, but how do you explain the zero?). 

LSAClassOf2000

May 1st, 2014 at 5:42 PM ^

Although it is not broken out as the OP's data is, total departmental revenue and expenses (at least for the last available fiscal year presumably) is in a USA Today database found here - LINK

One thing that is interesting is that it is relatively consistent - within a couple positions at the top - with portions of the OP's table, at least when sorted by ticket sales.Top three in total revenue on USA Today's table are also Texas, Ohio State and Michigan in that order. 

jblaze

May 1st, 2014 at 5:50 PM ^

by $10 million in coaching/ trainer salaries. I'm assuming that's because Hoke/ Beilein are paid less than Urban/ Matta, but it's not $10million/ year.

Black Socks

May 1st, 2014 at 11:45 PM ^

Where can we find the income / expenditures by sport?  I would like to see how much it costs to run various varsity sports at M.