https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/


SEC:

2. Texas A&M: $211,960,034
5. Alabama: $174,307,419
6. Georgia: $157,852,479
8. Florida: $149,165,475
9. Louisiana State: $147,744,233
10. Auburn: $147,511,034
11. Tennessee: $145,653,191
16. South Carolina: $136,032,845
18. Kentucky: $130,706,744
20. Arkansas: $129,680,808
26. Mississippi: $117,834,511
36. Mississippi State: $100,062,237
38. Missouri: $97,848,195
62. Vanderbilt: $80,335,651
Total: $1,926,694,856
Average Per Team: $137,621,061


Big 10:

3. Ohio State: $185,409,602
4. Michigan: $185,173,187
14. Penn State: $144,017,055
15. Wisconsin: $142,930,591
19. Iowa: $130,681,467
22. Michigan State: $126,021,377
25. Nebraska: $120,205,090
27. Minnesota: $116,376,862
31. Indiana: $106,139,192
39. Illinois: $97,447,731
40. Rutgers: $96,883,027
43. Maryland: $94,881,357
54. Purdue: $84,841,133
56. Northwestern: $84,279,755
Total: $1,715,848,804
Average Per Team: $122,560,629


Big 12:

1. Texas: $214,830,647
7. Oklahoma: $155,238,481
30. West Virginia: $110,565,870
32. Texas Christian: $105,055,587
37. Baylor: $98,125,426
42. Kansas: $95,251,461
46. Oklahoma State: $91,644,865
51. Texas Tech: $88,804,476
53. Kansas State: $86,081,528
60. Iowa State: $82,659,447
Total: $1,128,257,788
Average Per Team: $112,825,779


PAC 12:

12. Oregon: $145,417,315
21. Washington: $128,745,183
23. Stanford: $125,039,558
28. Southern Cal: $113,174,912
33. Cal Los Angeles: $104,106,646
34. Arizona State: $101,579,860
44. Colorado: $94,226,111
48. Arizona: $90,976,758
49. California: $90,976,576
58. Utah: $83,672,639
63. Oregon State: $78,959,875
****************************
66. Washington State: $64,294,520
Total: $1,221,169,953
Average Per Team: $101,764,163


ACC:

13. Florida State: $144,514,413
24. Louisville: $120,445,303
29. Clemson: $112,600,964
35. Duke: $100,480,206
41. North Carolina: $96,540,823
45. Virginia: $92,865,175
47. Syracuse: $91,445,865
50. Miami: $89,135,175
52. Virginia Tech: $87,427,526
55. Pittsburgh: $84,831,036
57. N.C. State: $83,741,572
61. Georgia Tech: $81,762,024
64. Boston College: $74,587,091
65. Wake Forest: $66,995,224
Total: $1,327,372,397
Average Per Team: $94,812,314


*17. Notre Dame: $132,371,404

The Only G5 school to place in the top 65:

59. Connecticut: $83,374,223


Gross Total Revenue By Conference:
1. SEC: $1,926,694,856
2. B1G: $1,715,848,804
3. ACC: $1,327,372,397
4. PAC: $1,221,169,953
5. B12: $1,128,257,788

Gross Total Revenue Average Per School by Conference:
1. SEC: $137,621,061
2. B1G: $122,560,629 (-$15,060,432)
3. B12: $112,825,779 (-$24,795,282)
4. PAC: $101,764,163 (-$35,856,898)
5. ACC: $ 94,812,314 (-$42,808,747)


NOTES: I think this is the greatest distance from the average per school revenue that we have had ever. Is there any wonder that many are beginning to doubt the ability of the ACCN to help them catch up?

Next year the Big 10 will get a spike in revenue of 12 million while the SEC will see a spike of about 6. So by the end of next year when this report comes out expect the Big 10 to close their deficit to us to about 8 to 9 million in distance. This is why I have not been troubled by the Big 10's media deal. They've gotten their best shot and will still come up almost 9 million short.

I think you can see why the Big 12 hasn't really felt the heat due to finances. They do fine. If movement happens it will be for reasons other than money.

TV money is very nice to have but doesn't solve all of any department's money issues.

In some ways it can be a distraction from the athletic department's task of selling tickets and raising money from donors. That money is what puts the top 20 or 30 athletic departments at the top. But some programs near the bottom of their conference (I previously used Washington State as an example) expect TV money to keep growing and growing forever and solve all of their money issues.

And, maybe more importantly, a school that is getting heavily outspent by others in its own conference obviously can't look to TV revenue to catch up, because their conference mates are getting just as much of it. TV money helps Purdue to maintain a huge money gap ahead of Ball State but does nothing to close the even larger gap between Purdue and Ohio State.

(06-29-2018 01:32 AM)Wedge Wrote:  TV money is very nice to have but doesn't solve all of any department's money issues.

In some ways it can be a distraction from the athletic department's task of selling tickets and raising money from donors. That money is what puts the top 20 or 30 athletic departments at the top. But some programs near the bottom of their conference (I previously used Washington State as an example) expect TV money to keep growing and growing forever and solve all of their money issues.

And, maybe more importantly, a school that is getting heavily outspent by others in its own conference obviously can't look to TV revenue to catch up, because their conference mates are getting just as much of it. TV money helps Purdue to maintain a huge money gap ahead of Ball State but does nothing to close the even larger gap between Purdue and Ohio State.

Yes. I've been watching Vanderbilt. The richer the SEC gets the farther behind the fall. This is their first year since the advent of the SECN that Vandy has fallen all the way into 60's for overall positioning. They've been as high as the low 50's but have steadily declined a couple of positions a year. They prove your point.

Remember, B1G still pools 35 percent of the net gate receipts, after sales tax, from conference football home games, up to $1 million per game and at minimum $300,000 per game.

The Plain Dealer did a deeper dive into B1G schools, sans NW, earlier this year.
https://www.cleveland.com/expo/erry-2018...s_emp.html

NC & VA are pushing 30 million less than B-10 avg, that's before 12 million bump
I can't imagining them holding off B-10 much longer

FSU, Clemson, Mia{Fla}, VT, Syc, GT to B-12 can't be far behind

That's $150 million a year difference between the richest P5 and the poorest. That dwarfs the difference between the P5 and G5.

(06-29-2018 10:03 AM)ken d Wrote:  That's $150 million a year difference between the richest P5 and the poorest. That dwarfs the difference between the P5 and G5.

Not unusual. Years ago breaking down revenue fairly early in the BCS era Pac-10, SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big XII revenue was significantly larger than Big East and the gap between the rest of the AQ and Big East was about the same as the gap between Big East and CUSA/MWC and the gap between them and Sun Belt/MAC was about the same (with WAC in-between).

(06-29-2018 08:52 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  NC & VA are pushing 30 million less than B-10 avg, that's before 12 million bump
I can't imagining them holding off B-10 much longer

FSU, Clemson, Mia{Fla}, VT, Syc, GT to B-12 can't be far behind

I think the buzz has already started. But their will be competition for these schools. But between the SEC and Big 10 it will boil down to the preferences of the schools that might be interested. The issue is that GOR. Is it possible that 12 schools could find new, more profitable potential homes and vote to disband?

A year ago I would have said no. But considering the gaps the thought has to be creeping into the backs of the minds of presidents, A.D.'s, and trustees at many places.

(06-29-2018 11:10 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 10:03 AM)ken d Wrote:  That's $150 million a year difference between the richest P5 and the poorest. That dwarfs the difference between the P5 and G5.

Not unusual. Years ago breaking down revenue fairly early in the BCS era Pac-10, SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big XII revenue was significantly larger than Big East and the gap between the rest of the AQ and Big East was about the same as the gap between Big East and CUSA/MWC and the gap between them and Sun Belt/MAC was about the same (with WAC in-between).

I was talking about the difference between Texas ($214M) and Washington State ($64M).

(06-29-2018 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 08:52 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  NC & VA are pushing 30 million less than B-10 avg, that's before 12 million bump
I can't imagining them holding off B-10 much longer

FSU, Clemson, Mia{Fla}, VT, Syc, GT to B-12 can't be far behind

I think the buzz has already started. But their will be competition for these schools. But between the SEC and Big 10 it will boil down to the preferences of the schools that might be interested. The issue is that GOR. Is it possible that 12 schools could find new, more profitable potential homes and vote to disband?

A year ago I would have said no. But considering the gaps the thought has to be creeping into the backs of the minds of presidents, A.D.'s, and trustees at many places.

The biggest reason for the gap in the ACC has less to do with media revenue and more to do with internal revenues, like ticket sales and donations. Even if some schools go elsewhere, whatever internal deficiencies they have will still exist. They probably won't sell more tickets, and they might even sell less if they abandon their traditional rivalries.

(06-29-2018 01:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 11:10 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 10:03 AM)ken d Wrote:  That's $150 million a year difference between the richest P5 and the poorest. That dwarfs the difference between the P5 and G5.

Not unusual. Years ago breaking down revenue fairly early in the BCS era Pac-10, SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big XII revenue was significantly larger than Big East and the gap between the rest of the AQ and Big East was about the same as the gap between Big East and CUSA/MWC and the gap between them and Sun Belt/MAC was about the same (with WAC in-between).

I was talking about the difference between Texas ($214M) and Washington State ($64M).

It's massive isn't it! Clearly Washington State and Wake Forest are annually drifting closer toward the gravity of the other side of the divide. In fact right now I'd say the cutoff is $80,000,000 with less than 10% subsidy.

(06-29-2018 01:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 11:10 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 10:03 AM)ken d Wrote:  That's $150 million a year difference between the richest P5 and the poorest. That dwarfs the difference between the P5 and G5.

Not unusual. Years ago breaking down revenue fairly early in the BCS era Pac-10, SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big XII revenue was significantly larger than Big East and the gap between the rest of the AQ and Big East was about the same as the gap between Big East and CUSA/MWC and the gap between them and Sun Belt/MAC was about the same (with WAC in-between).

I was talking about the difference between Texas ($214M) and Washington State ($64M).

I think it is just a continuation of the process

Reality is that pretty much everyone is seeing revenue grow faster than inflation but some are exceeding inflation in a Camry and some strapped to a rocket and it is just going to keep stringing out.

The danger is the schools using university and student funds to get their stock car to keep up with a rocket or their Camry to keep up with a Corvette.

(06-29-2018 01:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 01:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 11:10 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 10:03 AM)ken d Wrote:  That's $150 million a year difference between the richest P5 and the poorest. That dwarfs the difference between the P5 and G5.

Not unusual. Years ago breaking down revenue fairly early in the BCS era Pac-10, SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big XII revenue was significantly larger than Big East and the gap between the rest of the AQ and Big East was about the same as the gap between Big East and CUSA/MWC and the gap between them and Sun Belt/MAC was about the same (with WAC in-between).

I was talking about the difference between Texas ($214M) and Washington State ($64M).

I think it is just a continuation of the process

Reality is that pretty much everyone is seeing revenue grow faster than inflation but some are exceeding inflation in a Camry and some strapped to a rocket and it is just going to keep stringing out.

The danger is the schools using university and student funds to get their stock car to keep up with a rocket or their Camry to keep up with a Corvette.

Yeah, you can see the possibility of that. Rutgers, for example, starts with less self-generated revenue than Oregon State or Georgia Tech, and they supplement it with a $33 million/year subsidy, and even after they do that they are still way behind the teams they have to compete with in every sport every year -- $30 million/year behind Michigan State and almost $90 million/year behind Ohio State and Michigan.

(06-29-2018 03:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 01:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 01:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 11:10 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 10:03 AM)ken d Wrote:  That's $150 million a year difference between the richest P5 and the poorest. That dwarfs the difference between the P5 and G5.

Not unusual. Years ago breaking down revenue fairly early in the BCS era Pac-10, SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big XII revenue was significantly larger than Big East and the gap between the rest of the AQ and Big East was about the same as the gap between Big East and CUSA/MWC and the gap between them and Sun Belt/MAC was about the same (with WAC in-between).

I was talking about the difference between Texas ($214M) and Washington State ($64M).

I think it is just a continuation of the process

Reality is that pretty much everyone is seeing revenue grow faster than inflation but some are exceeding inflation in a Camry and some strapped to a rocket and it is just going to keep stringing out.

The danger is the schools using university and student funds to get their stock car to keep up with a rocket or their Camry to keep up with a Corvette.

Yeah, you can see the possibility of that. Rutgers, for example, starts with less self-generated revenue than Oregon State or Georgia Tech, and they supplement it with a $33 million/year subsidy, and even after they do that they are still way behind the teams they have to compete with in every sport every year -- $30 million/year behind Michigan State and almost $90 million/year behind Ohio State and Michigan.

Ah! But ahead of North Carolina and Virginia. Hello!

(06-29-2018 01:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 01:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 11:10 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 10:03 AM)ken d Wrote:  That's $150 million a year difference between the richest P5 and the poorest. That dwarfs the difference between the P5 and G5.

Not unusual. Years ago breaking down revenue fairly early in the BCS era Pac-10, SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big XII revenue was significantly larger than Big East and the gap between the rest of the AQ and Big East was about the same as the gap between Big East and CUSA/MWC and the gap between them and Sun Belt/MAC was about the same (with WAC in-between).

I was talking about the difference between Texas ($214M) and Washington State ($64M).

It's massive isn't it! Clearly Washington State and Wake Forest are annually drifting closer toward the gravity of the other side of the divide. In fact right now I'd say the cutoff is $80,000,000 with less than 10% subsidy.

Yet I see no mechanism by which that kind of disparity can be mitigated. Wake Forest isn't going to be expelled from the ACC. And there is no advantage to them to voluntarily leave. They can't drop football. Their only option is to continue as they are and focus on competing with the bottom half of the ACC while being realistic in their OOC schedules.

At the end of the day, getting beaten up in the ACC is better than any other alternative they have.

(06-29-2018 03:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 03:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 01:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 01:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 11:10 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Not unusual. Years ago breaking down revenue fairly early in the BCS era Pac-10, SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big XII revenue was significantly larger than Big East and the gap between the rest of the AQ and Big East was about the same as the gap between Big East and CUSA/MWC and the gap between them and Sun Belt/MAC was about the same (with WAC in-between).

I was talking about the difference between Texas ($214M) and Washington State ($64M).

I think it is just a continuation of the process

Reality is that pretty much everyone is seeing revenue grow faster than inflation but some are exceeding inflation in a Camry and some strapped to a rocket and it is just going to keep stringing out.

The danger is the schools using university and student funds to get their stock car to keep up with a rocket or their Camry to keep up with a Corvette.

Yeah, you can see the possibility of that. Rutgers, for example, starts with less self-generated revenue than Oregon State or Georgia Tech, and they supplement it with a $33 million/year subsidy, and even after they do that they are still way behind the teams they have to compete with in every sport every year -- $30 million/year behind Michigan State and almost $90 million/year behind Ohio State and Michigan.

Ah! But ahead of North Carolina and Virginia. Hello!

Only because of Rutgers' ginormous subsidy of its athletic department, which includes an obscene $11.8 million/year in student fees.

Rutgers' ticket sales plus donations last year: $20.9 million

North Carolina's: $45.2 million

(06-29-2018 03:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 01:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 01:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 11:10 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 10:03 AM)ken d Wrote:  That's $150 million a year difference between the richest P5 and the poorest. That dwarfs the difference between the P5 and G5.

Not unusual. Years ago breaking down revenue fairly early in the BCS era Pac-10, SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big XII revenue was significantly larger than Big East and the gap between the rest of the AQ and Big East was about the same as the gap between Big East and CUSA/MWC and the gap between them and Sun Belt/MAC was about the same (with WAC in-between).

I was talking about the difference between Texas ($214M) and Washington State ($64M).

It's massive isn't it! Clearly Washington State and Wake Forest are annually drifting closer toward the gravity of the other side of the divide. In fact right now I'd say the cutoff is $80,000,000 with less than 10% subsidy.

Yet I see no mechanism by which that kind of disparity can be mitigated. Wake Forest isn't going to be expelled from the ACC. And there is no advantage to them to voluntarily leave. They can't drop football. Their only option is to continue as they are and focus on competing with the bottom half of the ACC while being realistic in their OOC schedules.

At the end of the day, getting beaten up in the ACC is better than any other alternative they have.

The same is true of Vanderbilt, Washington State, Northwestern, to some extent Oregon State. But at least Vanderbilt and Northwestern are at or slightly above that $80,000,000 Mendoza line that's being formed.

(06-29-2018 03:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 03:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 01:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 01:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 11:10 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Not unusual. Years ago breaking down revenue fairly early in the BCS era Pac-10, SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big XII revenue was significantly larger than Big East and the gap between the rest of the AQ and Big East was about the same as the gap between Big East and CUSA/MWC and the gap between them and Sun Belt/MAC was about the same (with WAC in-between).

I was talking about the difference between Texas ($214M) and Washington State ($64M).

It's massive isn't it! Clearly Washington State and Wake Forest are annually drifting closer toward the gravity of the other side of the divide. In fact right now I'd say the cutoff is $80,000,000 with less than 10% subsidy.

Yet I see no mechanism by which that kind of disparity can be mitigated. Wake Forest isn't going to be expelled from the ACC. And there is no advantage to them to voluntarily leave. They can't drop football. Their only option is to continue as they are and focus on competing with the bottom half of the ACC while being realistic in their OOC schedules.

At the end of the day, getting beaten up in the ACC is better than any other alternative they have.

The same is true of Vanderbilt, Washington State, Northwestern, to some extent Oregon State. But at least Vanderbilt and Northwestern are at or slightly above that $80,000,000 Mendoza line that's being formed.

Are they? Because they are private universities, we don't have the data on how much of their athletic department budget is subsidized. Could be zero, could be $30 million like Rutgers, we don't know.

It's probably not zero, at least at Northwestern. Articles about Northwestern's new $270 million athletic complex say that Northwestern used money from fundraising for the university general fund, not from an athletics fundraising campaign, to finance that palace.

(06-29-2018 04:42 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 03:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 03:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 01:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 01:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  I was talking about the difference between Texas ($214M) and Washington State ($64M).

It's massive isn't it! Clearly Washington State and Wake Forest are annually drifting closer toward the gravity of the other side of the divide. In fact right now I'd say the cutoff is $80,000,000 with less than 10% subsidy.

Yet I see no mechanism by which that kind of disparity can be mitigated. Wake Forest isn't going to be expelled from the ACC. And there is no advantage to them to voluntarily leave. They can't drop football. Their only option is to continue as they are and focus on competing with the bottom half of the ACC while being realistic in their OOC schedules.

At the end of the day, getting beaten up in the ACC is better than any other alternative they have.

The same is true of Vanderbilt, Washington State, Northwestern, to some extent Oregon State. But at least Vanderbilt and Northwestern are at or slightly above that $80,000,000 Mendoza line that's being formed.

Are they? Because they are private universities, we don't have the data on how much of their athletic department budget is subsidized. Could be zero, could be $30 million like Rutgers, we don't know.

It's probably not zero, at least at Northwestern. Articles about Northwestern's new $270 million athletic complex say that Northwestern used money from fundraising for the university general fund, not from an athletics fundraising campaign, to finance that palace.

Maybe you do and maybe you don't but you can look up their reports at the Equity in Athletics site and see for yourself. Their verbiage is different so have to read more closely. I seem to recall Stanford for instance had a separate fund for their women's sports which seemed like a subsidy to me. Don't recall much on the rest because I was basically searching their total revenue to include them in the breakdown in order with what USAToday reported on the State schools.

But as to your point it's moot because they are on the tail end of their conferences as well and moving down the rankings instead of up.

(06-29-2018 05:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 04:42 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 03:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 03:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 01:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It's massive isn't it! Clearly Washington State and Wake Forest are annually drifting closer toward the gravity of the other side of the divide. In fact right now I'd say the cutoff is $80,000,000 with less than 10% subsidy.

Yet I see no mechanism by which that kind of disparity can be mitigated. Wake Forest isn't going to be expelled from the ACC. And there is no advantage to them to voluntarily leave. They can't drop football. Their only option is to continue as they are and focus on competing with the bottom half of the ACC while being realistic in their OOC schedules.

At the end of the day, getting beaten up in the ACC is better than any other alternative they have.

The same is true of Vanderbilt, Washington State, Northwestern, to some extent Oregon State. But at least Vanderbilt and Northwestern are at or slightly above that $80,000,000 Mendoza line that's being formed.

Are they? Because they are private universities, we don't have the data on how much of their athletic department budget is subsidized. Could be zero, could be $30 million like Rutgers, we don't know.

It's probably not zero, at least at Northwestern. Articles about Northwestern's new $270 million athletic complex say that Northwestern used money from fundraising for the university general fund, not from an athletics fundraising campaign, to finance that palace.

Maybe you do and maybe you don't but you can look up their reports at the Equity in Athletics site and see for yourself. Their verbiage is different so have to read more closely. I seem to recall Stanford for instance had a separate fund for their women's sports which seemed like a subsidy to me. Don't recall much on the rest because I was basically searching their total revenue to include them in the breakdown in order with what USAToday reported on the State schools.

But as to your point it's moot because they are on the tail end of their conferences as well and moving down the rankings instead of up.

The Equity in Athletics site doesn't identify subsidies.