+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: AAC Conference Talk (/forum-409.html)
+---- Thread: Revenue For All Teams (/thread-738550.html)
Revenue For All Teams - Knightbengal - 05-26-2015 07:12 PM
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ interesting to see the differences in university funds vs student fees. Our merchandising certainly has benefited from the jump up.
RE: Revenue For All Teams - NBPirate - 05-26-2015 07:32 PM
This is from 2013-2014... I'd expect to see a good bump from ECU, Tulsa, and Tulane this year.
RE: Revenue For All Teams - Bearcats#1 - 05-26-2015 07:37 PM
UC at #52
Will get a nice bump from the expanded and upgraded Nippert Stadium this upcoming year.
RE: Revenue For All Teams - robertfoshizzle - 05-26-2015 07:42 PM
(05-26-2015 07:32 PM)NBPirate Wrote: This is from 2013-2014... I'd expect to see a good bump from ECU, Tulsa, and Tulane this year.
Tulsa and Tulane are not on the list... public schools only.
RE: Revenue For All Teams - robertfoshizzle - 05-26-2015 07:45 PM
This list basically tells us who our Mountain West targets would be for expansion. SDSU, Boise State, Air Force, New Mexico, and UNLV are all right there in a row in the mid-$40 million range. Colorado State and Fresno State are down a little further. The other MWC schools are likely not viable options.
RE: Revenue For All Teams - Cubanbull - 05-26-2015 07:57 PM
USF did ok for as bad as our major sports have been.
RE: Revenue For All Teams - oldtiger - 05-26-2015 09:07 PM
(05-26-2015 07:32 PM)NBPirate Wrote: This is from 2013-2014... I'd expect to see a good bump from ECU, Tulsa, and Tulane this year.
I think that most of the ECU fans here are pretty familiar with this list since we've dissected it from several angles for 2-3 years now. Did you notice that Oregon's Nike $ has put them ahead of UT's super deep pockets for the first time?
Looking at that list, it's easy to see why UConn (primarily) and UC (to a lessor degree) fans aren't happy sharing a conference with us. They were on a different level than the rest of us.
Revenue For All Teams - Pony94 - 05-26-2015 09:13 PM
I like not having to report anything
RE: Revenue For All Teams - Sam Minuteman - 05-26-2015 09:32 PM
3 of the top 5 and 6 of the top 20 Total Subsidies paid by AAC schools. No one can say New Jersey, Ohio, Connecticut, Texas, & Florida don't support their team!
Was this from the year UConn got stuck on the hook for all those BCS tickets would explain them being so high there?
RE: Revenue For All Teams - TIGERCITY - 05-26-2015 09:42 PM
(05-26-2015 09:07 PM)oldtiger Wrote:(05-26-2015 07:32 PM)NBPirate Wrote: This is from 2013-2014... I'd expect to see a good bump from ECU, Tulsa, and Tulane this year.
I think that most of the ECU fans here are pretty familiar with this list since we've dissected it from several angles for 2-3 years now. Did you notice that Oregon's Nike $ has put them ahead of UT's super deep pockets for the first time?
Looking at that list, it's easy to see why UConn (primarily) and UC (to a lessor degree) fans aren't happy sharing a conference with us. They were on a different level than the rest of us.
Different level? Maybe 'some of us' but clearly not the "rest of us" --- Memphis is ranked #55 overall and #3 in the G5. Cincinnati? Ranked #52 overall and #2 in the G5. Doesn't look like a 'clear' separation to me ---
RE: Revenue For All Teams - jaredf29 - 05-26-2015 10:54 PM
Nice
RE: Revenue For All Teams - oldtiger - 05-26-2015 11:47 PM
(05-26-2015 09:42 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:(05-26-2015 09:07 PM)oldtiger Wrote:(05-26-2015 07:32 PM)NBPirate Wrote: This is from 2013-2014... I'd expect to see a good bump from ECU, Tulsa, and Tulane this year.
I think that most of the ECU fans here are pretty familiar with this list since we've dissected it from several angles for 2-3 years now. Did you notice that Oregon's Nike $ has put them ahead of UT's super deep pockets for the first time?
Looking at that list, it's easy to see why UConn (primarily) and UC (to a lessor degree) fans aren't happy sharing a conference with us. They were on a different level than the rest of us.
Different level? Maybe 'some of us' but clearly not the "rest of us" --- Memphis is ranked #55 overall and #3 in the G5. Cincinnati? Ranked #52 overall and #2 in the G5. Doesn't look like a 'clear' separation to me ---
I understand your comment, take a look at 2013 and I think that you'll see the separation. I wasn't clear what time period "were" referred to. :)
RE: Revenue For All Teams - stxrunner - 05-27-2015 12:43 AM
Thanks for posting. This has been updated with 2014 numbers since the last time I looked at it. Either that or I didn't realize they had updated it since I last looked haha.
RE: Revenue For All Teams - BearcatMan - 05-27-2015 05:48 AM
(05-26-2015 07:37 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote: UC at #52
Will get a nice bump from the expanded and upgraded Nippert Stadium this upcoming year.
I believe it would be around $5.8M if memory serves correctly from all the suites and club seating and naming and venue rental fees, and another $5M from the UA deal, so our number would head up to around $70M next year unless of course they cut the subsidy a bit.
Crazy how much the Oregon "brand" has jumped in the last 10 years. That's the power of apparel and an exciting offense.
I'd be very interested in seeing where the DOA schools like Boston College, Northwestern, and Wake Forest are at financially, would be pretty low I'd think.
Revenue For All Teams - Knightbengal - 05-27-2015 07:19 AM
(05-27-2015 05:48 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:(05-26-2015 07:37 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote: UC at #52
Will get a nice bump from the expanded and upgraded Nippert Stadium this upcoming year.
I believe it would be around $5.8M if memory serves correctly from all the suites and club seating and naming and venue rental fees, and another $5M from the UA deal, so our number would head up to around $70M next year unless of course they cut the subsidy a bit.
Crazy how much the Oregon "brand" has jumped in the last 10 years. That's the power of apparel and an exciting offense.
I'd be very interested in seeing where the DOA schools like Boston College, Northwestern, and Wake Forest are at financially, would be pretty low I'd think.
Being associated with the premium brands ie Nike and espn. Shows how big a difference donors make.
RE: Revenue For All Teams - quo vadis - 05-27-2015 07:22 AM
We can just about rank-order the conferences in terms of overall strength by looking at the percentage of student/academic subsidies the athletic side is getting.
Number of schools with less than a 5% subsidy percentage:
SEC:...... 10
B1G:....... 8 (B1G has most schools with less than 2% subsidy rate)
Big 12:..... 5
PAC:....... 3
ACC: ...... 0 (most ACC schools have less than a 15% subsidy rate)
In contrast, the G5 are loaded with subsidies, robbing students and academics to Keep The Dream Alive. The best G5 school on the list is Boise, with a 26% subsidy rate. There are 50 schools, all P5, that have lower subsidy rates than them.
The best AAC school is UConn, which has a whopping 38% subsidy rate. My USF has an embarrassing 44% subsidy rate.
Wish I had the time to calculate subsidy rates for each conference.
RE: Revenue For All Teams - BearcatMan - 05-27-2015 07:32 AM
(05-27-2015 07:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote: We can just about rank-order the conferences in terms of overall strength by looking at the percentage of student/academic subsidies the athletic side is getting.
Number of schools with less than a 5% subsidy percentage:
SEC:...... 10
B1G:....... 8 (B1G has most schools with less than 2% subsidy rate)
Big 12:..... 5
PAC:....... 3
ACC: ...... 0 (most ACC schools have less than a 15% subsidy rate)
In contrast, the G5 are loaded with subsidies, robbing students and academics to Keep The Dream Alive. The best G5 school on the list is Boise, with a 26% subsidy rate. There are 50 schools, all P5, that have lower subsidy rates than them.
The best AAC school is UConn, which has a whopping 38% subsidy rate. My USF has an embarrassing 44% subsidy rate.
Wish I had the time to calculate subsidy rates for each conference.
That's a bit dramatic...I mean, most of those schools offer free entry to games for students (which could run between $200-$500 per season at other schools) AND athletics have improved the college experience for MOST of the students on those campuses. How much is the per student contribution? $900-$1200 or so on the high end? I think that's well worth it, considering the average college student probably spends more on that in alcohol per year. I know Cincinnati can directly contribute most of its recent success in academics to the increased national reach that their football and basketball success has brought them, and I'm sure the UCF and Memphis administrations will be saying the same in a few years.
RE: Revenue For All Teams - cotton1991 - 05-27-2015 08:04 AM
(05-26-2015 09:13 PM)Pony94 Wrote: I like not having to report anything
SMU only responds to subpoenas or takes the fifth, j/k
RE: Revenue For All Teams - CliftonAve - 05-27-2015 08:14 AM
(05-26-2015 07:37 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote: UC at #52
Will get a nice bump from the expanded and upgraded Nippert Stadium this upcoming year.
Don't forget the bump in pay from the Under Armour deal.
RE: Revenue For All Teams - TUBballJunkie - 05-27-2015 08:19 AM
(05-26-2015 07:12 PM)Knightbengal Wrote: http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ interesting to see the differences in university funds vs student fees. Our merchandising certainly has benefited from the jump up.
Is that what the subsidy column represents? Student fees?