December 10, 2005
BCS Teams' Revenues and Expenses
The Equity In Athletics Disclosure Website has the raw athletic budget data for all Div1 schools -- interesting stuff. A quick summary below of the total athletic department revenues, football revenues, football expenses, and net football contribution for the BCS bowl participants and near-miss participants, sorted by football revenues:
| Total Athletic | Football | Football | Net Football | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| School | Revenues | Revenues | Expenses | Contribution |
| Texas | $89.7M | $53.2M | $14.5M | $38.7M |
| Ohio State | 89.7 | 51.8 | 25.7 | 26.1 |
| Georgia | 68.8 | 50.9 | 12.5 | 38.4 |
| Notre Dame | 57.6 | 41.8 | 15.1 | 26.7 |
| Auburn | 50.9 | 40.6 | 16.4 | 24.2 |
| LSU | 60.9 | 39.7 | 12.1 | 27.6 |
| Penn State | 60.8 | 33.2 | 10.7 | 22.5 |
| USC | 60.7 | 29.3 | 16.7 | 12.6 |
| Virginia Tech | 45.7 | 25.3 | 13.8 | 11.5 |
| Florida State | 39.0 | 18.3 | 9.1 | 9.2 |
| Miami | 39.8 | 17.2 | 10.7 | 6.5 |
| West Virginia | 35.9 | 17.2 | 11.3 | 5.9 |
| Oregon | 40.1 | 16.8 | 9.5 | 7.3 |
Some observations:
* There is a dramatic difference between the top and bottom revenue producers in just this list, and this is the cream of the crop. The bottom tier Div1A schools are way behind. "Equity in Athletics" indeed.
* Ohio State players must be sleeping on silk sheets and eating Kobe beef at every meal. (Note that there are a lot of uncategorized revenues and expenses at every school so this could be just a matter of different approaches to cost and revenue allocation).
* West Virginia is the model of efficiency -- great results on a (relative) shoestring. Cost of living must be low in Morgantown.
* USC needs to hire someone to focus on their business. How can they have the on field results and the brand they have, and yet be so far behind in revenue generation?
Thanks to The Sports Economist for the pointer.
Comments:
boifromtroy said:
posted on December 11, 2005 2:08 AM — 68.233.235.234 — link — abuse?
There may be revenues which are not directly attributed to football--such as memberships in alumni sports groups--which USC is counting as non-football revenue, but are in fact football-related.
I cannot imagine that they're getting $30 million from their basketball and water polo teams.
The Mayor said:
posted on December 11, 2005 5:08 AM — 24.23.202.200 — link — abuse?
greg6363: I used to live in LA and believe that the Coliseum is closer to the 'SC campus than Autzen Stadium is to the UO campus. I have walked both and I think the walk in Eugene is much longer (especially with the Oregon weather).
I haven't been to the Coliseum since 1989 but do they still sell big beers to the General Public? It's the only college football venue that I have been to that one could buy a beer and then walk back to their General Admission seats. I was just curious if the PC police had "corrected" this luxury at the Coliseum.
If not, does USC get some or all of the profits from the Coliseum beer sales?
AU03 said:
posted on December 11, 2005 8:21 AM — 68.17.128.51 — link — abuse?
There is a great tradeoff in playing in the LA Coliseum- they sell beer there, as I found out went I saw the trojans play Auburn in 2002. If other schools allowed the same thing, there would be fewer incidents at games in the stands. The people who would be drinking beer sneak in their Wild Turkey and get obilterated instead- before, during, and after the game.
posted on December 11, 2005 8:42 AM — link — abuse?Kevin Donahue said:
Interesting to see how far down the ACC teams rank by comparison.
posted on December 11, 2005 12:53 PM — 67.168.84.33 — link — abuse?
boi, many of the schools have this misclassification problem. i am also sure that Ohio State is not generating it's other $38M in revenue from softball and rugby. i still think, as a business, usc is substantially underperforming.
greg6363 said:
posted on December 11, 2005 6:00 PM — 131.204.158.115 — link — abuse?
The Mayor: Your comment on the distance from campus to the Coliseum is true but the neighborhood in Eugene is a lot safer than South Central L.A., especially at night. Yes, they still sell beer but in smaller cups and there is a cutoff time. Yes, they do have a revenue sharing agreement with the Coliseum but it is smaller compared to the other major college football powers who control their cash flows with the on-campus stadiums/arenas. Fortunately, USC is opening the on-campus Galen Center next year for mens and womens basketball so students will not have to trek down to the decrepit Sports Arena to watch a game.
Steve said:
posted on December 12, 2005 2:24 PM — 208.42.62.21 — link — abuse?
OSU's expense includes paying down debt on extensive renovations to Ohio Stadium completed a couple years ago. Not quite silk sheets and Kobe steaks, but $12 to 15 million after the debt expense is still a very sizeable budget.
Andre said:
posted on December 12, 2005 3:09 PM — 66.169.105.157 — link — abuse?
For the record, USC President Steven Sample announced in June that the sale and possession of alcoholic beverages would no longer be allowed inside the Coliseum because of unruly behavior that he said was detrimental to the game-day atmosphere.
The stort was posted here as well. This policy has even been extended with their final season at the LA Sports Arena.RICK said:
posted on December 12, 2005 11:55 PM — 205.188.116.199 — link — abuse?
Of the schools listed, Penn State plays in the largest stadium. (Where's Michigan listed?) Just by doing the math (33.2 mil / home attendace 734,013= $45 and change), looks like this number only represents ticket sales. While the attendance figure is NOT paid attendance (it includes bands, cheerleaders, press, etc.)it's close enough. There's also Big Ten TV money and bowl money that gets split up. (That's good because, with the exception of Ohio State, it appears that the cost of a four year college education for the scholarship players is also not included in the Football Expense line.)
DDD said:
posted on December 13, 2005 4:44 AM — 68.181.255.142 — link — abuse?
1. Alcohol is now prohibited at SC football games effective this season.
2. I don't think SC is that underperofrming, It must have osmthing to do with how they classify their profits and such.
3. They are spending around 70-90 million on the New Galen Center this year.
mike said:
posted on December 13, 2005 4:58 AM — 24.30.101.126 — link — abuse?
The Coliseum definitely does not serve beer anymore and this was the first season it did not. A major bummer but hey, at least we were one of the last to go. As The Mayor said, yes, the Coliseum is very close to campus (~5 minute walk) but there are still costs and revenue shares associated with playing there as it is owned by the city of Los Angeles. I have no idea what the figures are so I can't be too informative about that.
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
greg6363 said:
posted on December 10, 2005 11:56 PM — 131.204.158.114 — link — abuse?One consideration regarding USC is the fact they do not have an on-campus stadium like the other college football superpowers which gives a school greater control over the cash flows from ticket sales, concessions, etc. In light of their location, it's just not feasible. As an alum, I understand the tradeoff that comes with playing in the L.A. Coliseum.