B10 FB revenue's, expenses, and recruiting budgets

[GoAUpher]

ESPN's B10 Blog linked to a Cedar Rapids Gazette blog post on football revenues, expenses, and recruiting budgets for all the Big Ten teams (as well as some other programs from across the nation for a wider comparison) in the 2008 fiscal year. Here's the link: http://scottdo.wordpress.com/2009/0...mparisons-with-iowa-state-notre-dame-big-ten/

The blog post lists the dollar amounts but doesn't actually rank the schools from 1-11 in all 3 categories...so I did.

Revenue:
1) Ohio State $65,162,179
2) Michigan $57,463,603
3) Penn State $53,766,038
4) Michigan State $43,826,312
5) Iowa $37,998,729
6) Wisconsin $37,733,698
7) Illinois $25,370,427
8) Minnesota $24,275,876
9) Indiana $21,774,074
10) Purdue $21,641,794
11) Northwestern $21,080,405

Expenses:
1) Ohio State $33,063,248
2) Iowa $26,166,182
3) Wisconsin $22,979,031
4) Michigan State $17,910,444
5) Michigan $16,785,667
6) Penn State $16,537,705
7) Purdue $14,501,436
8) Indiana $12,493,144
9) Illinois $12,210,666
10) Northwestern $12,113,946
11) Minnesota $9,306,397

Recruiting Budget:
1) Michigan $929,383
2) Minnesota $866,117
3) Illinois $862,681
4) Purdue $810,016
5) Ohio State $794,284
6) Michigan State $744,715
7) Iowa $637,685
8) Indiana $633,002
9) Penn State $534,741
10) Wisconsin $452,958
11) Northwestern $482,588

Things I found interesting for:
Recruiting
- Brewster really is serious about recruiting w/ the 2nd largest budget in the B10. I'm betting the national scope of the search (especially to Texas/FL) really adds to the costs.
- The top 3 recruiting budgets are for the 3 coaches who are probably known primarily as recruiters.
- I'm wondering why Purdue's recruiting budget is so high. My guess? They recruit FL pretty hard. Mnboiler, care to share your 2 cents?
- PSU sure gets their $$$ worth on the recruiting front.
- I'm sure how wide a net each team casts for recruits impacts this expense a great deal. I'm too tired to hunt through the SI.com and WizofOdds.com resources to give details. Someone else want to give it a shot?

Revenue
- There is a pretty sizable gap in revenue between us and Wisky/Iowa. I wonder how much TCF will improve this. I'm guessing quite a bit since we did not see any suite/ad revenue at the Dome (and only a % of the concessions if I'm not mistaken).
- The 3 biggest stadiums vault OSU, Mich, and PSU into a class by themselves when it comes to revenue.
- I was surprised to see MSU pull 43 mil in revenue. Somehow I would have thought they were closer to Wisky, especially since Camp Randall seats more (6 mil extra is nothing to sneeze at). Wonder why that is? Cost of tickets? Suite revenues?

Expenses
- We are last in expenses and I can't decide if that is a good or bad thing. Probably a bit of both. Anyone care to wager why this is?
- I wonder why Iowa/Wisky's expenses are so high? Sure cuts into those revenues!

What does everyone else think when they see these $$$ figures?

Also, I tried to format the $$$ amounts into nice columns. It looks good in the post typing window but not so hot when I actually submit the post. If anyone has a suggestion on how to fix this let me know and I'll edit the post. I know there is info on the site somewhere but again, I'm too tired to look right now.

 

[Ski U Mah Gopher]

I think our expenses will go up in the future, since stadium operations and maintenance are probably included in expenses. Remember, we haven't had stadium maintenance in 28 years.

 

[ncgo4]

Thanks for the poop. Very interesting and enlightening. Revenues and expenses will rocket up next year as Da U actually becomes a home owner instead of a renter.

Total attendance last ear was 343 K. Next year should be 350 K with the same number of home games. Parking revenues, 100% of concessions and higher ticket pricing (including premium seating) should easily raise revenue by 50% at a minimum and more likely by 60%-75%. We will be right in line with the rest of the B10 (ex the big 3).

The key, however, is the difference between revenue & expenses. Last year at Wisky it was $14.7 million, Iowa it was $11.8 million and Minnesota it was $15.0 million. Revenue doesn't necessarily mean profit. Our huge rise in revenue next year will need to be managed and it would be interesting to see the backgrounds on the people who will be the TCF plant and concession managers. This will be the very first time in decades that Da U athletics department has had this kind of a management challenge.

 

[dinkything]

Thanks for the poop. Very interesting and enlightening. Revenues and expenses will rocket up next year as Da U actually becomes a home owner instead of a renter.

The key, however, is the difference between revenue & expenses. Last year at Wisky it was $14.7 million, Iowa it was $11.8 million and Minnesota it was $15.0 million.

relatively lower profit margins at wisky and iowa likely due to debt service obligations...related to recent stadium expansions/renovations...

not all big 10 universities stick local taxpayers with the tab either (60+% of $288 million???)...and then charge each member of the student body with an additional $25/semester stadium fee

result? the u's expenses have been subsidized in a manner in which an apple-to-apple comparison of big 10 financial data is difficult to ascertain...

 

[GoAUpher]

relatively lower profit margins at wisky and iowa likely due to debt service obligations...related to recent stadium expansions/renovations...

not all big 10 universities stick local taxpayers with the tab either (60+% of $288 million???)...and then charge each member of the student body with an additional $25/semester stadium fee

result? the u's expenses have been subsidized in a manner in which an apple-to-apple comparison of big 10 financial data is difficult to ascertain...

Um, state taxpayers (not local) paid for TCF. The Wisconsin expansion cost approx $110 million, $12 million of which came from the school’s general fund (see UW doc here and scroll to bottom: http://www.uwsa.edu/capbud/documents/sbc/2006/Mar06/0306CampRandallIncr_SafetyItemsSBC.doc). I don’t know the finances of UW well, but I suspect that the state contributes quite a bit to the UW general fund and thus, state taxpayers in WI helped pay for the project too. The majority of the money ($85 million) came from “Program Revenue Supported Borrowing” (see previous link). That’s the money they were able to borrow b/c of what the project would raise in suite sales/etc. That’s the difference between a renovation and a brand new stadium. Not only did it cost them less then half of what we’re paying for TCF, they were able to borrow based on future revenues. In a sense the project paid for itself. TCF will do the same but as a “from scratch” stadium it will take a lot longer, thus the help from the state.

Also, its probably good if you got your stats right. The U is paying for approx 52% of the stadium while the state is paying for 48% (see here: http://stadium.gophersports.com/about_financing.html).

I’ll try to do more digging into the cost of Iowa’s project but the point is the same. New stadium obviously costs more and therefore requires more help.

 

[mnboiler]

The reason Purdue's recuiting budget is that the coaches recuit Florida really hard. Of the 20 commits they got for 2009 15 of them came from the Sunshine State and NONE of them came from Indiana. That would be the main reason why Purdue's recuiting budget is so large.

 

[dinkything]

from GoAUpher "Um, state taxpayers (not local) paid for TCF."

ummm, precisely my point...local tax payers...as in...from the local state of minnesota...are subsidizing a large share of the cost of tcf stadium...thereby artificially 'lowering' the stated expenses needed to run the program...

...so we can all sit around and wonder why the 'big boyz' dwarf the u in financial support of athletics...

but...no problem...obama's stimulus package includes a chunk of dough to help pawlenty pay for these ongoing 'expenses' in minnesota...of which the cost of the stadium is included...

 

[GoAUpher]

from GoAUpher "Um, state taxpayers (not local) paid for TCF."

ummm, precisely my point...local tax payers...as in...from the local state of minnesota...are subsidizing a large share of the cost of tcf stadium...thereby artificially 'lowering' the stated expenses needed to run the program...

Since when does local refer to an entire state? I thought you were referring to the type of deal the Twins got with the county paying extra sales tax to fund their portion. No biggie.

...so we can all sit around and wonder why the 'big boyz' dwarf the u in financial support of athletics...

I'm not following you here. Are you commenting that other B10 schools pump more of their athletic dept money into FB vs. the U?

 

[Goldmember]

from GoAUpher "Um, state taxpayers (not local) paid for TCF."

ummm, precisely my point...local tax payers...as in...from the local state of minnesota...are subsidizing a large share of the cost of tcf stadium...thereby artificially 'lowering' the stated expenses needed to run the program...

It is not a subsidy. It's restitution.

 

[MinnMarchDTF]

You know, I wonder how much money could be saved with an early signing period. I mean, Brewster has said that they spend a lot of money traveling to see their national recruits who are already committed. If those that know where they want to go can sign early, then the coaches won't have to pay as much to travel to see them over the course of the year.

 

[grunkiejr]

from GoAUpher "Um, state taxpayers (not local) paid for TCF."

ummm, precisely my point...local tax payers...as in...from the local state of minnesota...are subsidizing a large share of the cost of tcf stadium...thereby artificially 'lowering' the stated expenses needed to run the program...

...so we can all sit around and wonder why the 'big boyz' dwarf the u in financial support of athletics...

but...no problem...obama's stimulus package includes a chunk of dough to help pawlenty pay for these ongoing 'expenses' in minnesota...of which the cost of the stadium is included...

Capital expenses (building stadiums) woudn't be included in the budget. What may be included is debt service on the stadium but as mentioned in a previous thread the band will be using the stadium and the intramurals will be using the stadium so saying that the full cost of the stadium should be allocated to the athletic dept. isn't really fair. The state pays for a lot of buildings at the U of M, that is a part of it being a state University. They pay a portion of every renovation, and every new building and the U has their capital budget approved by the state.

 

[mnboiler]

Just a few quick thoughts after looking and thinking about the lists for a few day.

1. Look for Michigan to give O$U a run for it's money for the top spot when the huge project is done. A lot a premium seating they didn't have before.

2. Looking far head into the future the follow teams have basically maxed out there stadiums and will not be able to build any more seating-unless it is converting regular to premium seating. O$U, PSU, Wis, Iowa. These following teams have limited potenial for growth(meaning large parts of there stadium basically can not be expanded any more) UM, MSU, Ill. The rest are in fine shape for future growth. So assuming that the demand is there look for that list to get tighter rather than expand more.

3. How can O$U find a place to spend 7 million more than any other team. Either 1. They use $100 bill for TP or 2. They bring recuits to strip bars. Which would explain alot because Jim Tressel doesn't seem to have that dymantic of a personality and he doesn't play a style of football recuits like to play. Besides who wears a sweater vest?

4. It's a good and bad thing the Gophers are last in expenses. The good they know how to run a good business and fi they open the check book even a little bit for new weight room, etc. they would really have something. The bad it shows recuits that maybe the powers that be aren't 100% the team.

Also in terms of overall athletic department revenue the U has a huge advantage with that 3 teams make money. FB, MBB, MHockey. Most schools have 2 which pay for the entire department to some extent it offsets some revenue loss to O$U and UM.

 

[Jwill535]

This was discussed on other boards, but basically the recruiting numbers are most likely BS. First off, this blog most likely got these numbers from some accountant who more then likely made a guess on a number. There are no tax papers or itemized lines that people can access that show what a school pays for recruiting. Also what athletic department would willingly put numbers out there? Secondly there is no breakdown in terms of what those numbers were. A number he got from one school may include things that another school number doesnt.

 

[GoAUpher]

This was discussed on other boards, but basically the recruiting numbers are most likely BS. First off, this blog most likely got these numbers from some accountant who more then likely made a guess on a number. There are no tax papers or itemized lines that people can access that show what a school pays for recruiting. Also what athletic department would willingly put numbers out there? Secondly there is no breakdown in terms of what those numbers were. A number he got from one school may include things that another school number doesnt.

I take it you never went to the link...

The Education Department doesn’t supply specific recruiting expenses, but a good rule of thumb is that football recruiting expenses take up between 40 and 55 percent of all men’s recruiting expenses (except Notre Dame, which is much higher).

The author of the post makes it clear that the recruiting expenses are an estimation.

 

[dinkything]

Just a few quick thoughts after looking and thinking about the lists for a few day.

1. Look for Michigan to give O$U a run for it's money for the top spot when the huge project is done. A lot a premium seating they didn't have before.

2. Looking far head into the future the follow teams have basically maxed out there stadiums and will not be able to build any more seating-unless it is converting regular to premium seating. O$U, PSU, Wis, Iowa. These following teams have limited potenial for growth(meaning large parts of there stadium basically can not be expanded any more) UM, MSU, Ill. The rest are in fine shape for future growth. So assuming that the demand is there look for that list to get tighter rather than expand more.

3. How can O$U find a place to spend 7 million more than any other team.

Also in terms of overall athletic department revenue the U has a huge advantage with 3 teams that make money. FB, MBB, MHockey. Most schools have 2 which pay for the entire department to some extent it offsets some revenue loss to O$U and UM.

hey boilerboy...i didn't know michigan's hockey program didn't make money??
might wanna check that one to verify...

also, osu spends 7 million more than any other team, as you point out...perhaps because of their $200 million stadium renovation earlier this decade? that's a lot of debt to service...

by the way, i enjoyed your homecoming game last october...when the gophers rolled into west lafayette laid a thumpin on your boilermakers

 

[mnboiler]

I very easily could be wrong but I thought the Gopher's Mens Hockey team made money. If I'm wrong I'm sorry. Atleast the team comes closer to making money than other sports.

Very true Ohio State did spend alot of money on a huge renovation a few years $191 mil roughly. Just about double any other Big-10 school paid to renovate there stadium at roughly the same time. That would account for large part of the 7 mil.

 

[grunkiejr]

I very easily could be wrong but I thought the Gopher's Mens Hockey team made money. If I'm wrong I'm sorry. Atleast the team comes closer to making money than other sports.

Very true Ohio State did spend alot of money on a huge renovation a few years $191 mil roughly. Just about double any other Big-10 school paid to renovate there stadium at roughly the same time. That would account for large part of the 7 mil.

I think Hockey profitability is a little less than basketball but pretty close. However, what Dinkything was trying to say was that Michigan (and OSU although he didn't say it) also have hockey programs that they turn a profit on. Your point is well taken that Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, MSU & OSU all have hockey programs which increases revenue to the Athletic Dept. that other schools in the conference and country dno't have.

 

[mittens22]

Iowa is typically high on expenses and recruiting budgets because they almost always have to travel further than other schools. Minnesota and Wisconsin typically have a good crop of studs every year as does nearly every other school. On average, Iowa will produce two or three 3* and maybe one 4* a year with the 2009 and 2010 classes being exceptions. Iowa then must spend the money to to get the others, many times from Texas or New Jersey.