(08-13-2019 12:58 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 12:46 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Also, for the expansion addicts... wanna see why no one should be on the USM train?

#108 - Troy
#110 - USA
#111 - Kent State
#113 - Ball State
#119 - NMSU
#121 - NIU
#124 - Bowling Green
#125 - Southern Miss
#127 - Louisiana Tech
#170 - Louisiana Monroe

If we're going purely by revenue...

#61 James Madison, $51.71MM in revenue higher than all but 8 G5 programs.

Until you realize that they only generated $10MM in revenue on their own without pulling from school general funds. That's one of two columns I wish they'd add...Revenue Less Subsidy and Net Operating +/-...it would definitely put things into even starker perspective, and would also give a better perspective of which departments are better at generating their own income.

Just for fun, here are those values for our conference in order of largest Revenue Less Subsidy:

1. UConn
Revenue Less Subsidy: $40,267,408
Net Operating +/-: ($40,638,237)

2. UCF
Revenue Less Subsidy: $33,694,421
Net Operating +/-: ($27,424,550)

3. Cincinnati
Revenue Less Subsidy: $32,540,220
Net Operating +/-: ($32,215,083)

4. Memphis
Revenue Less Subsidy: $32,352,260
Net Operating +/-: ($23,110,245)

5. ECU
Revenue Less Subsidy: $25,923,858
Net Operating +/-: ($21,486,951)

6. Houston
Revenue Less Subsidy: $23,964,596
Net Operating +/-: ($33,142,317)

7. USF
Revenue Less Subsidy: $21,589,423
Net Operating +/-: ($29,084,917)

To put this into perspective, one football team (USF) and two basketball teams (Houston and Cincinnati) were not in complete control of their home revenues this year. Houston and Cincinnati should likely see a big bump in Revenue Less Subsidy and a decrease in Net Operating +/- precipitated by the decrease in expenses for rent/facility holding costs.

Of the G5 programs, quite a few had better pure revenue numbers than our lower end conference mates, namely SDSU, Colorado State, Fresno State, UNLV, Boise State, Wyoming, New Mexico, and (oddly enough) Arknasas State, which all had Revenue Less Subsidy values of $26MM+ which would put them right in the middle of our league for that value. Hell, looking at values, USF's operating revenue minus subsidy actually would put them at 8th in the MWC (between New Mexico and Nevada-Reno) and 2nd in the Sun Belt (behind Arky State).

Actually, the MWC isn't far off of our numbers in any of these categories, and generally run smaller subsidy shares as well...it's a bit disconcerting to be honest. Every one of the schools (excluding Boise who leads their conference at $35MM Less Subsidy and only a 28% subsidy run) would be at best 5th in our conference out of those who report.

Craziest thing to think about...if you take out direct subsidies, our conference COMBINED would only place #3 in revenue...