So with the talk of G5 schools and the ability to "keep up" let's look at some real numbers and try and figure out the "cut off" or in other words, who will (if anybody) and who will not be able to keep up.

AAC Revenues Expenses % Subsidy
UCONN 63.3 mil 63.4 mil 29%
Cincy 61.9 mil 59.9 mil 35%

Memphis 46.3 mil 46.5 mil 40%
USF 45.0 mil 44.6 mil 40%
UH 42.0 mil 42.6 mil 62%
UCF 41.2 mil 41.9 mil 55%

ECU 35.8 mil 36.6 mil 41%

Did not see Tulane, Temple, Tulsa, or Navy...if anybody has these please add.

Others of note:

UNLV 64.5 mil 63.6 mil 56%

New Mex 44.3 mil 45.0 mil 34%
Boise 43.1 mil 43.2 mil 26%

SDSU 39.2 mil 42.8 mil 44%
Air Force 39.0 mil 39.4 mil 65%
Army 37.2 mil 27.8 mil 30%
Fresno St. 33.7 mil 33.0 mil 38%


For scale:
Teams with Revenues in the 60's: NCSt, Oreg St., Maryland, Iowa St, UCONN, Cincy, Gtech

Teams with Revenues int he 50's: Colorado

Teams with Revenues in the 40's: Wash St, Utah, Memphis, USF, New Mex, Boise, UH, UCF

Teams with Revenues in the 30's: SDSU, AF, Army, ECU, Col St, Fresno, Delaware, Umass

Teams with Revenues in the 20's: Texas St, WY, Buffalo, UAB, Akron, E Mich, W Mich, WKY, Ohio, Ga St, VCU, UTSA

These are not every school in each bucket, just some schools for scale....


What stands out to me is this:

In the AAC the range is 60+ mil down to 30+ mil in revenues...similar ranges exist in the P5's as well.

The P5's subsidies are all 11% or less (except Rutgers which was a whopping 65%???) whereas the G5 subsidies were mostly 30% or higher.

Looking at all the data here, (other data needs to be included as well I'm sure)...what teams look like they would be able to make the cut and pay up if the P5 gets their way? I don't mean what schools WANT to make the cut, but who CAN make the cut, if any?

discuss

Cincy, UConn, and USF got to grow their programs in the Big East...I expect Memphis numbers to keep trending toward 50 million.

For the public schools, as long as most of the subsidy is student fees, I don't see the problem. It's a stable financing source, been approved, and not subject to state legislature appropriations.
Private schools aren't going to release this information; but those are all internal decisions for those schools and up to them.

According to this, Temple's 2013 budget was 44 million

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/story/2415625...t-programs

i think it's telling that for the G5 the subsidy is 30% + for most of them but for the P5 the subsidy is usually under 10%....that's a big big difference.

Also, UNLV's revenue is impressive.

wonder what Tulsa, Tulane, and Navy revenues are....

(07-27-2014 12:44 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  i think it's telling that for the G5 the subsidy is 30% + for most of them but for the P5 the subsidy is usually under 10%....that's a big big difference.

Also, UNLV's revenue is impressive.

wonder what Tulsa, Tulane, and Navy revenues are....

its telling that the p5 have huge tv deals... remove tv money, and conference affiliation and a lot of thems would be dramatically worse than some of our teams

2mil and 20-30 mil is a huge difference

unlv has HUGE potential, locaton wise they are already a making a ton of money and are horrible in football (and werent p5 like uconn), if they can even field decent football teams, the revenue potential for them is crazy. the potential partner they could have and marketing opportunities would be huge

and navy's budget has to be amazing, they are completely self-sufficient (the only service academy that is) and oversell every game ..my guess would be 45-48mil

What can each university reasonably expect in 2014/2015?

The conference made $30 million on bowls last year, $22 million on ncaa credits, and $20 Million on TV. This does not include licensing. So on average each team would have received about $7.2 million per Member. This year the AAC goes to 11 members. Are we right to assume somewhere in the neighborhood of about $4 million/ team?

(07-27-2014 02:24 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 12:44 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  i think it's telling that for the G5 the subsidy is 30% + for most of them but for the P5 the subsidy is usually under 10%....that's a big big difference.

Also, UNLV's revenue is impressive.

wonder what Tulsa, Tulane, and Navy revenues are....

its telling that the p5 have huge tv deals... remove tv money, and conference affiliation and a lot of thems would be dramatically worse than some of our teams

2mil and 20-30 mil is a huge difference

unlv has HUGE potential, locaton wise they are already a making a ton of money and are horrible in football (and werent p5 like uconn), if they can even field decent football teams, the revenue potential for them is crazy. the potential partner they could have and marketing opportunities would be huge

and navy's budget has to be amazing, they are completely self-sufficient (the only service academy that is) and oversell every game ..my guess would be 45-48mil

UNLV uses a whopping $33 million from school funds on athletics each year, almost 57% of their total budget.

Ticket sales are a comparatively paltry $6 million.

Athletics is supposed to support academics, not the other way around. At UNLV, athletics is a huge taker from academics.

UCF and USF have large subsides, but our student fees are the lowest in the AAC. Benefits of a large student body.

Doesn't some schools count revenue differently? Like some count licensing while others don't? Hard to even get a picture if everyone does it differently.

(07-27-2014 02:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 02:24 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 12:44 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  i think it's telling that for the G5 the subsidy is 30% + for most of them but for the P5 the subsidy is usually under 10%....that's a big big difference.

Also, UNLV's revenue is impressive.

wonder what Tulsa, Tulane, and Navy revenues are....

its telling that the p5 have huge tv deals... remove tv money, and conference affiliation and a lot of thems would be dramatically worse than some of our teams

2mil and 20-30 mil is a huge difference

unlv has HUGE potential, locaton wise they are already a making a ton of money and are horrible in football (and werent p5 like uconn), if they can even field decent football teams, the revenue potential for them is crazy. the potential partner they could have and marketing opportunities would be huge

and navy's budget has to be amazing, they are completely self-sufficient (the only service academy that is) and oversell every game ..my guess would be 45-48mil

UNLV uses a whopping $33 million from school funds on athletics each year, almost 57% of their total budget.

Ticket sales are a comparatively paltry $6 million.

Athletics is supposed to support academics, not the other way around. At UNLV, athletics is a huge taker from academics.

because they are horrible and their 57% isnt that far off for the averag G5

the fact they are making 30+ mil in revenue doing 13-15k in football attendance is crazy it itself.
im sure a huge portion of it is licensing as the unlv brand is big in the vegas area and decently known around the nation
( Brandon Flowers From The Killers in the ncaa championship game)
https://24.media.tumblr.com/0f11081e4e96...o1_500.gif

imagine if they started winning and putting like 30k-40k in the stands, theyd not only make money from the tickets but they live in an entertainment city, theyd make a killing on advertisement, casinos would pay a but load to be "the official casino of the rebels" .

and if they ever build their stadium they make a ridiculous amount of money, from leasing the stadium to events

(07-27-2014 02:49 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  Doesn't some schools count revenue differently? Like some count licensing while others don't? Hard to even get a picture if everyone does it differently.

Perhaps, but the point of this thread was to "inform" fans of schools in this conference to know their role and accept they are inferior to the Cartel schools, thus perspective in accounting is irrelevant.

The bottom line is their revenues are inflated by tv deals. Our subsidies are from student fees


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(07-27-2014 02:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 02:24 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 12:44 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  i think it's telling that for the G5 the subsidy is 30% + for most of them but for the P5 the subsidy is usually under 10%....that's a big big difference.

Also, UNLV's revenue is impressive.

wonder what Tulsa, Tulane, and Navy revenues are....

its telling that the p5 have huge tv deals... remove tv money, and conference affiliation and a lot of thems would be dramatically worse than some of our teams

2mil and 20-30 mil is a huge difference

unlv has HUGE potential, locaton wise they are already a making a ton of money and are horrible in football (and werent p5 like uconn), if they can even field decent football teams, the revenue potential for them is crazy. the potential partner they could have and marketing opportunities would be huge

and navy's budget has to be amazing, they are completely self-sufficient (the only service academy that is) and oversell every game ..my guess would be 45-48mil

UNLV uses a whopping $33 million from school funds on athletics each year, almost 57% of their total budget.

Ticket sales are a comparatively paltry $6 million.

Athletics is supposed to support academics, not the other way around. At UNLV, athletics is a huge taker from academics.

Here's something that Quo and I can agree on.

Top 10 $ received in student fees/university funds to support athletics:
1 Rutgers $46,996,697
2 Nevada-Las Vegas $36,163,296
3 James Madison $28,428,737
4 Old Dominion $27,089,358
5 Delaware $26,117,411
6 Houston $26,114,464
7 Air Force $25,529,155
8 Massachusetts $24,354,427
9 Central Florida $22,857,979
10 Georgia State $22,603,029

With all due respect to the conversation above, UNLV may indeed have a future in being able to support athletics, but they don't have that ability today. Almost all of us need some assistance in funding, but Rutgers and UNLV should be ashamed of what they are doing to their taxpayers and students....$83 million between the two of them.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s.../finances/

(07-27-2014 04:10 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 02:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 02:24 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 12:44 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  i think it's telling that for the G5 the subsidy is 30% + for most of them but for the P5 the subsidy is usually under 10%....that's a big big difference.

Also, UNLV's revenue is impressive.

wonder what Tulsa, Tulane, and Navy revenues are....

its telling that the p5 have huge tv deals... remove tv money, and conference affiliation and a lot of thems would be dramatically worse than some of our teams

2mil and 20-30 mil is a huge difference

unlv has HUGE potential, locaton wise they are already a making a ton of money and are horrible in football (and werent p5 like uconn), if they can even field decent football teams, the revenue potential for them is crazy. the potential partner they could have and marketing opportunities would be huge

and navy's budget has to be amazing, they are completely self-sufficient (the only service academy that is) and oversell every game ..my guess would be 45-48mil

UNLV uses a whopping $33 million from school funds on athletics each year, almost 57% of their total budget.

Ticket sales are a comparatively paltry $6 million.

Athletics is supposed to support academics, not the other way around. At UNLV, athletics is a huge taker from academics.

Here's something that Quo and I can agree on.

Top 10 $ received in student fees/university funds to support athletics:
1 Rutgers $46,996,697
2 Nevada-Las Vegas $36,163,296
3 James Madison $28,428,737
4 Old Dominion $27,089,358
5 Delaware $26,117,411
6 Houston $26,114,464
7 Air Force $25,529,155
8 Massachusetts $24,354,427
9 Central Florida $22,857,979
10 Georgia State $22,603,029

With all due respect to the conversation above, UNLV may indeed have a future in being able to support athletics, but they don't have that ability today. Almost all of us need some assistance in funding, but Rutgers and UNLV should be ashamed of what they are doing to their taxpayers and students....$83 million between the two of them.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s.../finances/

remove the subsidy, unlv still makes dramatically more than 90% of the g5 if they removed their subidies , and thats without ever being p5 or ever being good at football.
they make 64mil 36 comes from subsidy and you instantly claim "they don't have that ability today {to support an athletic deparytment}" when the average g5 is probably 27mil with 10-14 mil sub..you have to look at the larger picture

and literally everyone but delaware on that list is either switching conferences, or tryingto (upgrading their facilities accordingly) or building or raising funds to build a new stadium

i dont know the purpose of this thread. money has to come from somewhere. highlighting that most of the G5 schools rely on student fees is like calling the sky blue. we all know we have a paltry TV contract. money does not grow on trees, you need to get it somewhere...... but as others have mentioned, a good swath of the P5 schools would rely on similar student fees if they did not rely on bloated cable TV contracts.

data from 2010 shows that FSU collected half as much from students than UCF. yet, their income was 10-20 times greater than UCF (you guessed it.... TV conference money).

put it in perspective for a change.

i would like to point out that relying on percentages is inaccurate as a P5 team collecting the same amount in student fees as a G5 team will have a lower percentage due to a much higher budget...... a budget that they can afford based on ridiculous showers of money from their conference TV money.

(07-27-2014 02:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 02:24 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 12:44 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  i think it's telling that for the G5 the subsidy is 30% + for most of them but for the P5 the subsidy is usually under 10%....that's a big big difference.

Also, UNLV's revenue is impressive.

wonder what Tulsa, Tulane, and Navy revenues are....

its telling that the p5 have huge tv deals... remove tv money, and conference affiliation and a lot of thems would be dramatically worse than some of our teams

2mil and 20-30 mil is a huge difference

unlv has HUGE potential, locaton wise they are already a making a ton of money and are horrible in football (and werent p5 like uconn), if they can even field decent football teams, the revenue potential for them is crazy. the potential partner they could have and marketing opportunities would be huge

and navy's budget has to be amazing, they are completely self-sufficient (the only service academy that is) and oversell every game ..my guess would be 45-48mil

UNLV uses a whopping $33 million from school funds on athletics each year, almost 57% of their total budget.

Ticket sales are a comparatively paltry $6 million.

Athletics is supposed to support academics, not the other way around. At UNLV, athletics is a huge taker from academics.

I want to say UNLV derives around 40-50 million in income from renting the Thomas Mack Center. Thats a huge source of income not available to most schools. A large portion of thier subsidy may not be coming from the student fees. Not really sure how they account for that revenue.

(07-27-2014 04:42 PM)otown Wrote:  i would like to point out that relying on percentages is inaccurate as a P5 team collecting the same amount in student fees as a G5 team will have a lower percentage due to a much higher budget...... a budget that they can afford based on ridiculous showers of money from their conference TV money.

I certainly have nothing against looking at it in terms of total dollars, not percentages.

Whatever the metric, the same schools are going to look fugly on it.

Schools that blast their students for these fees do not have to, they choose to. They prioritize a quixotic quest for athletic power over student welfare, and I admit USF is a big offender.

I can see doing this as an investment for a short period of time in order to achieve a bigger payoff. But at a certain point, enough is enough. Best to have both but if it's one or the other, academics, not athletics, should drive the bus.

(07-27-2014 03:22 PM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 02:49 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  Doesn't some schools count revenue differently? Like some count licensing while others don't? Hard to even get a picture if everyone does it differently.

Perhaps, but the point of this thread was to "inform" fans of schools in this conference to know their role and accept they are inferior to the Cartel schools, thus perspective in accounting is irrelevant.

uh...no it's not. I started the thread to have a discussion about what the revenue landscape looks like and who among us can go the P5 stipend route....

(07-27-2014 05:14 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 03:22 PM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 02:49 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  Doesn't some schools count revenue differently? Like some count licensing while others don't? Hard to even get a picture if everyone does it differently.

Perhaps, but the point of this thread was to "inform" fans of schools in this conference to know their role and accept they are inferior to the Cartel schools, thus perspective in accounting is irrelevant.

uh...no it's not. I started the thread to have a discussion about what the revenue landscape looks like and who among us can go the P5 stipend route....

He's just trying to troll you. This is a very good thread, thanks for starting it.