Minnesota athletics 23rd in nation in revenue, with $83,619,526

Donate To GopherHole


Always wonder how much those numbers are skewed by the fact that at Minnesota athletes are charged full bump for tuition and the Department gets ZERO revenue for Game Day Parking. The later at least, will be modified next season.
 

Iceland12 said:
They are being subsidized to the tune of $7 million? Guess every dollar over there does count.


23
Minnesota
$83,619,526 $83,619,526 $6,961,066 8.32
Revenue Expense Subsidy
Click to expand...

It does all matter, but it's also worth pointing out that a ton of major schools have subsidies as large or larger than ours, and only 10 schools are subsidized <$1m (interestingly, 6 of those 10 are B1G schools).

Rutgers $28.0m
Oregon State $18.7m
UConn $17.3m
Maryland $17.2m
Cincinnati $16.5m
Colorado $15.9m
Virginia $13.1m
Arizona State $10.3m
Cal $9.5m
UNC $9.1m
Wash St $8.8m
Florida St $7.8m
Va Tech $7.7m
Arizona $7.3m
Wisconsin $7.1m
Minnesota $7.0m
Georgia Tech $6.9m
Oklahoma State $6.2m
 

Very good point. Hmm, even though some of their fans might not be happy about it it's pretty easy to see why their Administrators are please with the move to the Big Ten. Oh and why UConn and Cincinnati want out of the Big East, or whatever they call themselves now. :)


Gopher07 said:
It does all matter, but it's also worth pointing out that a ton of major schools have subsidies as large or larger than ours, and only 10 schools are subsidized <$1m (interestingly, 6 of those 10 are B1G schools).

Rutgers $28.0m
Oregon State $18.7m
UConn $17.3m
Maryland $17.2m
Cincinnati $16.5m
Colorado $15.9m
Virginia $13.1m
Arizona State $10.3m
Cal $9.5m
UNC $9.1m
Wash St $8.8m
Florida St $7.8m
Va Tech $7.7m
Arizona $7.3m
Wisconsin $7.1m
Minnesota $7.0m
Georgia Tech $6.9m
Oklahoma State $6.2m
Click to expand...
 


Iceland12 said:
Very good point. Hmm, even though some of their fans might not be happy about it it's pretty easy to see why their Administrators are please with the move to the Big Ten. Oh and why UConn wants out of the Big East, or whatever they call themselves now. :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, that one really stood out to me as well. Rutgers and Maryland were absolutely going to take the financial windfall because their athletic department budgets are really, really bad.
 

I'm not trying to rehash a debate that's been covered way too much, but it's interesting the amount of schools on that list that are in major metro areas.
It might be a coincidence, I have no idea, just interesting.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I'm not trying to rehash a debate that's been covered way too much, but it's interesting the amount of schools on that list that are in major metro areas.
It might be a coincidence, I have no idea, just interesting.
Click to expand...

While that's true if you go down the list there are some pretty huge subsidies going to smaller schools and schools without any real Pro competition also.
 

Think about this...(disclaimer: no research) if we are 23rd in the nation in total revenue that is pretty impressive.
We have to be about 70th in football revenue? Whatever that number is...football, as we all know, is the biggest revenue generator for all schools. So, imagine if we could get our football team selling out, clamoring for tickets
and substantially raise our football revenue.
Pitino will get basketball rockin' Jerry will get football moving up but how fast can anyone do that? Way, way harder in football. Impressive we are presently 23rd with piddly football money.
 



60's Guy said:
Think about this...(disclaimer: no research) if we are 23rd in the nation in total revenue that is pretty impressive.
We have to be about 70th in football revenue? Whatever that number is...football, as we all know, is the biggest revenue generator for all schools. So, imagine if we could get our football team selling out, clamoring for tickets
and substantially raise our football revenue.
Pitino will get basketball rockin' Jerry will get football moving up but how fast can anyone do that? Way, way harder in football. Impressive we are presently 23rd with piddly football money.
Click to expand...
We were 21st in football revenue in 2011. 11th biggest profit in Basketball. http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/06/20/which-football-and-basketball-programs-produce-the-largest-profits/ These numbers also don't credit basketball and football with a lot of revenue that they earned. The big ten network money isn't credited to Football/Basketball even though it's obvious which teams are being watched. The AD is trying his best to avoid sending money back to the general fund. You're not going to freeze spending increases on a particular team so you can send money back to academics.
 

60's Guy said:
Think about this...(disclaimer: no research) if we are 23rd in the nation in total revenue that is pretty impressive.
We have to be about 70th in football revenue? Whatever that number is...football, as we all know, is the biggest revenue generator for all schools. So, imagine if we could get our football team selling out, clamoring for tickets
and substantially raise our football revenue.
Pitino will get basketball rockin' Jerry will get football moving up but how fast can anyone do that? Way, way harder in football. Impressive we are presently 23rd with piddly football money.
Click to expand...

I'm curious how you arrived at the conclusion that Minnesota is "70th" in revenue and has "piddly football money". We have high-revenue basketball and hockey programs, but there's no way those bring us from "70th" in football revenue to 23rd in total sports revenue. No way. I remember reading an article within the last few years that stated we were 22nd overall in football revenue. I have to believe we're still in that ballpark.
 

It's mostly nonsense.

You can't rank revenues when the "revenues" are all calculated and defined differently.
 

What I'd like to know is the $7M subsidy/year number comes from. I'm sure some of that is prorated portions of the Mason/Monson/Brewster buyouts, and some of it is financing for the New Brickhouse, but it still seems high.
 



GopherRock said:
What I'd like to know is the $7M subsidy/year number comes from. I'm sure some of that is prorated portions of the Mason/Monson/Brewster buyouts, and some of it is financing for the New Brickhouse, but it still seems high.
Click to expand...

It doesn't come from anywhere that is 'real'. it's just a plug number. Revenues - expenses = negative $X. So, Minnesota decides they'll report the negative $X as the 'subsidy' so that it shows a break even bottom line.

Again, don't grasp onto these rankings or numbers. It's not incredibly useful information.
 

dpodoll68 said:
I'm curious how you arrived at the conclusion that Minnesota is "70th" in revenue and has "piddly football money". We have high-revenue basketball and hockey programs, but there's no way those bring us from "70th" in football revenue to 23rd in total sports revenue. No way. I remember reading an article within the last few years that stated we were 22nd overall in football revenue. I have to believe we're still in that ballpark.
Click to expand...

Well, let's start with no knowledge and no research as stated but I'm still surprised. The prevailing buzz is we don't draw for football...correct? Compared to when you think of Michigan, Ohio St, Penn St, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska and all the SEC schools where football is king and Oklahoma, Texas and Notre Dame and those kinds of places when you think of college football....then it follows for me we'd be way down the list, because we don't draw any where near those schools.

Now the link is for profit vs revenue but it still seems similar. According to that list we have more football revenue than USC or Oregon. I would not have guessed that. Okay so if we are in the top 25 in football revenue and we have high ranking basketball and hockey programs....I have two more questions off the top of my head to be "questioned" about...
1. I was happy with our football progress and the upward trend, but if we are in the top 25 in revenue in all of college football...then why are our facilities at the level they are? and why is our program no where near top 25 annually? I was comfortable thinking we needed to win to increase revenue to raise us more to a level of the powers, but we are fringe top 25 now, already in football revenue. I get that the top dogs are 50 million ahead of us but a lot of people are in shouting distance to catch in revenue, to move up as well. So, we should be better on the field. I have less patience with this knowledge is my point.
2. If we are top 25 in football revenue. If we have successful basketball and hockey revenues. Lots of schools don't have the hockey numbers. What drags us down to just sit at 23? All the minor sports? Other schools don't offer as big a menu as we do?
 

60's Guy said:
Well, let's start with no knowledge and no research as stated but I'm still surprised. The prevailing buzz is we don't draw for football...correct? Compared to when you think of Michigan, Ohio St, Penn St, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska and all the SEC schools where football is king and Oklahoma, Texas and Notre Dame and those kinds of places when you think of college football....then it follows for me we'd be way down the list, because we don't draw any where near those schools.

Now the link is for profit vs revenue but it still seems similar. According to that list we have more football revenue than USC or Oregon. I would not have guessed that. Okay so if we are in the top 25 in football revenue and we have high ranking basketball and hockey programs....I have two more questions off the top of my head to be "questioned" about...
1. I was happy with our football progress and the upward trend, but if we are in the top 25 in revenue in all of college football...then why are our facilities at the level they are? and why is our program no where near top 25 annually? I was comfortable thinking we needed to win to increase revenue to raise us more to a level of the powers, but we are fringe top 25 now, already in football revenue. I get that the top dogs are 50 million ahead of us but a lot of people are in shouting distance to catch in revenue, to move up as well. So, we should be better on the field. I have less patience with this knowledge is my point.
2. If we are top 25 in football revenue. If we have successful basketball and hockey revenues. Lots of schools don't have the hockey numbers. What drags us down to just sit at 23? All the minor sports? Other schools don't offer as big a menu as we do?
Click to expand...
We're not so terribly far away from being a top 25 football program, matching our revenue ranking. We've been there in the Metrodome and in 5 years we will have a new practice facility to go with the Bank. The Basketball and Hockey programs have obviously shown their ability to be top 25. Top Ten is a little harder nut to crack.
 

Now Imagine, this list in a few years. The SEC now has its own TV contract, which will ultimately be giving each school around 30 million a year from estimates I have read. The SEC's facilities are going to dwarfs every except a few across the nation.
 

Another note, taking a second look at the numbers. The SEC currently has 10 of the top 21 grossing athletic programs. It will be scary the revenue these programs will be generating in a few years.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom