ESPN: B1G revenue can't buy BCS titles; B1G to distribute $25.7MM to each team

[BleedGopher]

per Rittenberg:

When it comes to college football's grandest prize, the Big Ten, like the rest of college football, has fallen way behind. More than a decade has passed since Ohio State claimed the Big Ten's last national title; the SEC has claimed the past seven.

But when it comes to generating revenue, the Big Ten has no trouble holding its own with the SEC. The Big Ten generated more than $315 million in revenue in its latest reported tax return (fiscal year ending June 30, 2012). The league is expected to distribute $25.7 million to most of its members for fiscal year 2012-13. The SEC was fourth in revenue (approximately $270 million) for fiscal year 2011-12, according to Forbes, trailing the Big Ten, Pac-12 and ACC.

The SEC led the nation in average attendance during the 2012 season with 75,538 fans per game, followed by the Big Ten at 70,040 fans. No other league averaged more than 60,000 per game.

http://espn.go.com/college-football...g-big-revenue-no-national-championships-sight

Go Gophers!!

 

[supadupafly]

per Rittenberg:

When it comes to college football's grandest prize, the Big Ten, like the rest of college football, has fallen way behind. More than a decade has passed since Ohio State claimed the Big Ten's last national title; the SEC has claimed the past seven.

But when it comes to generating revenue, the Big Ten has no trouble holding its own with the SEC. The Big Ten generated more than $315 million in revenue in its latest reported tax return (fiscal year ending June 30, 2012). The league is expected to distribute $25.7 million to most of its members for fiscal year 2012-13. The SEC was fourth in revenue (approximately $270 million) for fiscal year 2011-12, according to Forbes, trailing the Big Ten, Pac-12 and ACC.

The SEC led the nation in average attendance during the 2012 season with 75,538 fans per game, followed by the Big Ten at 70,040 fans. No other league averaged more than 60,000 per game.

http://espn.go.com/college-football...g-big-revenue-no-national-championships-sight

Go Gophers!!

This entire article is actually really good reading. Highly recommend if you have some time. Good insights that can be taken from it both from a U of M and a Big Ten perspective.

Especially like some of the quotes from the Meatchicken athletic director and O$U director and hope this is the same mentality that Norwood Teague is approaching his job from and making sure the rest of the department does as well.

Imo, Joel Maturi's "everyone is important, everyone matters the same, I love everyone equally" approach for the decade he was in charge as AD did actual damage to the growth/success potential of the nationally relevant (i.e. football & basketball.....sorry hockey...you are a different beast) revenue sports at the U of M during that time. And now Teague has to mend those over-sights done by Maturi's regime.

 

[AO54]

In 2005, the whole budget was $47 Million. Last year we had $84 Million in revenue and spent it all. If we could have kept the spending increases to only 5% a year we'd have the shovels in the ground for the new practice facilities. What accounts for the dramatic spending increase? We've managed to find cheaper football and basketball coaches.

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

In 2005, the whole budget was $47 Million. Last year we had $84 Million in revenue and spent it all. If we could have kept the spending increases to only 5% a year we'd have the shovels in the ground for the new practice facilities. What accounts for the dramatic spending increase? We've managed to find cheaper football and basketball coaches.

We may have found cheaper coaches, but we spent a lot of money paying two coaches at the same time after some of the buyouts.

 

[AO54]

We may have found cheaper coaches, but we spent a lot of money paying two coaches at the same time after some of the buyouts.

That accounts for some of the increase, but I suspect the article hit the nail on the head. We spend more money on everything. Nobody has a profit motive or sees the long term need for profit to pay for needed facilities upgrades. We'll just have to wait for however many years for donors to step in to pay for the new Bierman, etc.

 

[Grant]

AO54 raises a great question. Where is the money going? The players aren't getting the increased revenue. There is no owner to pocket it. Where is it all going to go?

 

[Iceland12]

AO54 raises a great question. Where is the money going? The players aren't getting the increased revenue. There is no owner to pocket it. Where is it all going to go?

Except for 7 schools in the country, 4 of which are in the B1G, you can ask that about everybody.

Purdue is one of just seven Division I athletic departments that operated in the black and received no subsidies in 2012. (Big Ten members Nebraska, Ohio State and Penn State also are in the group.) Burke takes pride in that but admits it's hard to be financially responsible in a realm where everyone is trying to get ahead.

Seven?

 

[Killjoy]

Except for 7 schools in the country, 4 of which are in the B1G, you can ask that about everybody.

Purdue is one of just seven Division I athletic departments that operated in the black and received no subsidies in 2012. (Big Ten members Nebraska, Ohio State and Penn State also are in the group.) Burke takes pride in that but admits it's hard to be financially responsible in a realm where everyone is trying to get ahead.

Seven?

These are good questions but you need to be careful when dealing with accounting information. Without knowing what revenues, costs, and overheads are allocated to the programs it is very likely that a person might draw the wrong conclusion. A couple of simple examples of this would be the parking revenues earned from games at U of M. It is credited to the parking authority but the revenues are really due to the athletic departments sport activities. Studies have also shown that the success of sports team can have a significant impact on contributions. Depending on the cost allocation system used the athletic department, the department may be being allocated expenses that would not disappear if the department did not exist. Another type of example of this is charging back to the department the full price of a scholarship. This would very likely be more than what the school actually receives in payment from an average student. A lot of bad decisions have been made because the people reading the financial statements don't understand accounting,

 

[Iceland12]

These are good questions but you need to be careful when dealing with accounting information. Without knowing what revenues, costs, and overheads are allocated to the programs it is very likely that a person might draw the wrong conclusion. A couple of simple examples would be parking revenues earned from games at Minnesota is credited to the parking authority but are really earned by the athletic department. Studies have also shown that the success of sports team can have a significant impact on contributions. Depending on the cost allocation system used the athletic department be be allocated expenses that would not disappear if the department did not exist. One type of example of this is charging back to the department the full price of a scholarship. This would likely be more than what the school actually receives fin payment from an average student. A lot of bad decisions have been made because the people reading the financial statements don't understand accounting,

All true,but it still doesn't explain away 113 schools need a subsidy. I'll buy "accounting" problems for some of them, maybe a good chunk of them but 113?

 

[station19]

In 2005, the whole budget was $47 Million. Last year we had $84 Million in revenue and spent it all. If we could have kept the spending increases to only 5% a year we'd have the shovels in the ground for the new practice facilities. What accounts for the dramatic spending increase? We've managed to find cheaper football and basketball coaches.

How much of that is due to tuition increases?

 

[AO54]

How much of that is due to tuition increases?

I believe only about 15% of the budget is spent on scholarships and out-of-state tuition has actually decreased during that time period. In-state tuition has increased 50% from 8K to 12K.

 

[4four4]

I would really like to know where the money goes.

 

[station19]

I believe only about 15% of the budget is spent on scholarships and out-of-state tuition has actually decreased during that time period. In-state tuition has increased 50% from 8K to 12K.

thanks

 

[Buck_Buchanan]

All true,but it still doesn't explain away 113 schools need a subsidy. I'll buy "accounting" problems for some of them, maybe a good chunk of them but 113?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/

 

[Iceland12]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/

USA Today did a story last year on NCCA. Saw that one not this. Guessing that ESPN and USA Today are using the same research? Adding the schools that moved-up to FBS this year that makes 125 FBS schools.

Just 23 of 228 athletics departments at NCAA Division I public schools generated enough money on their own to cover their expenses in 2012. Of that group, 16 also received some type of subsidy — and 10 of those 16 athletics departments received more subsidy money in 2012 than they did in 2011.

There's your 7. So you throw in the Basketball Schools and it's still just 7? Using USA Today it looks like it only 23 out of 228 covered their own expenses but sixteen of them got subsidized. That' still leaves just 7.

Unreal.

 

[Iceland12]

The Badgers are the Most Subsidized Team in the Big Ten

Here's something that was buried in the USA Today story:

Wisconsin $103,803,040: In 2012, Wisconsin's total revenues and operating expenses each exceeded $100 million for the first time. Also in 2012, on a dollar basis, Wisconsin's program was the most heavily subsidized among those at Big Ten Conference public schools. It received more than $7.1 million in subsidies – including more than $4.8 million in direct support from the university. Denny Medley, USA TODAY Sports

 

[disco]

We can rehash a lot of the reasons the B1G is suffering a downslide nationally - declining population in once major recruiting states (OH, PA), the obvious climate issues which are out of our control (Florida is much nicer in the winter than Minneapolis or East Lansing), but one thing does stand out.

B1G football is still extremely popular in general, despite not being national title contenders most years.

And to be honest, this has been true for decades. Growing up in the 80's in the poll era, the Big Ten schools were never winning national titles. It was always Big 8 schools like OU and NU, or independents like Miami, Notre Dame and Penn State (BYU being an outlier). Those schools also weren't locked into the Rose Bowl playing lesser Pac 10 schools, so the media could play up a de facto national championship game, usually in the Orange Bowl which could choose an at-large team. But it didn't mean that Big Ten football was any less popular then. That's why FBS college football is different than other sports - the focus is on the regular season.