CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on June 15, 2023, 10:23:47 AM
-
This is more important to AD's than the Director's Cup Standings that I just posted.
I'm not sure if this deserves it's own thread. It ties into conference realignment, football, basketball, and athletics generally so I'll put it here and let the mods decide.
- $252M, tOSU
- $239M, TX
- $214M, Bama
- $211M, Michigan
- $203M, UGA
- $199M, LSU
- $193M, aTm
- $190M, Florida
- $181M, PSU
- $177M, Oklahoma
- $175M, Auburn
- $173M, Michigan State
- $167M, Indiana
- $162M, Virginia
- $161M, FSU
- $159M, Kentucky
- $158M, Clemson
- $155M, Tennessee
- $154M, Oregon
- $153M, Arkansas
- $151M, Iowa
- $150M, Wisconsin
- $146M, Louisville
- $146M, Illinois
- $145M, Washington
- 26 $143M, Nebraska
- 29 $135M, Minnesota
- 37 $115M, Purdue
- 42 $110M, Rutgers
- 43 $108M, Maryland
- 47 $103M, UCLA
I could not find Northwestern nor USC on the list. I *believe* that is because they are not Public Schools so this information is private and therefore unavailable but I could be wrong, maybe I just missed them.
Football is King:
According to tOSU records:
- $109M revenue was generated by football
- $24M revenue was generated by Men's basketball
- wrestling contributed "over $1M"
- No other sport contributed more than $1M
That probably understates the proportion of football revenue because another $110M was "not tied to any specific team." My *guess* is that if I buy a shirt that says "Ohio State Football" that revenue is counted as "football" revenue but if I buy a shirt that says "Ohio State" and has a picture of Brutus that is "not tied to any specific team" but obviously at a place like Ohio State most of those sales are generated by football.
-
UW will shoot up to $250-300 Mil next year when the money for renovations comes onto the books.
-
I recall reading that "revenue" figures are not always comparable between schools because of accounting differences.
-
I recall reading that "revenue" figures are not always comparable between schools because of accounting differences.
That is certainly possible. Also there are timing issues such as:
UW will shoot up to $250-300 Mil next year when the money for renovations comes onto the books.
If Wisconsin raises $50M in contributions for renovations that will show up as current revenue but those might actually be one-time contributions tied to that project not ongoing gifts.
I would say that if you are overly hung up on Michigan being $3M behind Bama and $8M ahead of UGA, that is probably unwise. Those are relatively small differences and you could probably make a credible argument that Michigan is actually either ahead of Bama or behind UGA. OTOH, there probably isn't a credible argument that say #25 Washington is actually ahead of #1 or #2.
-
I think most B1G ADs oversee more sporrts than most SEC ADs as well. UGA has/had an equesterian team as an oddball, I don't know if it's NCAA certified. Their hockey t team is not. Ice hockey.
Probably somewhere is a ranking of which programs have the most "left over/accumulated" too, which would be important.
-
UW will shoot up to $250-300 Mil next year when the money for renovations comes onto the books.
I recall reading that "revenue" figures are not always comparable between schools because of accounting differences.
Yeah they're really not comparable at all. For example, Texas doesn't consider capital fundraising for renovations or new build of facilities, as revenue. But a lot of other schools do.
-
Yeah they're really not comparable at all. For example, Texas doesn't consider capital fundraising for renovations or new build of facilities, as revenue. But a lot of other schools do.
While I get where you are coming from and agree to an extent, there are limits.
If an Ohio State fan wants to use this to brag that Ohio State is $13M ahead of Texas, that might be a mistake because there could be $13M worth of accounting differences considering that at the tOSU/TX level that is >10%.
That said, I'm 100% confident that both tOSU ($252M per this list) and Texas ($239M per this list) are actually ahead of UCLA ($103M per this list) because there simply can't be $136M worth of accounting differences.
-
Where not in Kansas anymore,shear madness
-
UCLA has some squirrely accounting things going on. Not shady, just unique.
-
While I get where you are coming from and agree to an extent, there are limits.
If an Ohio State fan wants to use this to brag that Ohio State is $13M ahead of Texas, that might be a mistake because there could be $13M worth of accounting differences considering that at the tOSU/TX level that is >10%.
That said, I'm 100% confident that both tOSU ($252M per this list) and Texas ($239M per this list) are actually ahead of UCLA ($103M per this list) because there simply can't be $136M worth of accounting differences.
While I get where you are coming from and agree with you to an extent, there are limits... ;)
For example, next year if UCLA decides to include a 1-year capital fundraising campaign that raises $200M for... say... repairs, upgrades, and improvements to Pauley Pavilion, and count it as revenue, then their books might "legitimately" say their revenue for 2023/2024 was $303M, which is of course greater than either tOSU or UT.
Is it "real" revenue? Sort of.
Is it "operating" revenue? Definitely not.
And I don't have any idea how many of the schools on the list are counting capital fundraising in this way, but I know for sure that some are. Texas A&M does this regularly.
-
It might be better to view something akin to average revenue over a decade ...
-
it's a ranking, which is a list, which is subjective
some have more than others
this is not new, this has been known for decades
-
This is known.
The list (ranking) is about as expected, I think if any of us were asked to concoct such a list out of thin air, we'd make about the same one, leaving out privates.
-
I recall reading that "revenue" figures are not always comparable between schools because of accounting differences.
Probably. I know UW's revenue does not include donations for athletics. Those go to the school.
-
Football - The Georgia Bulldog Club - The Georgia Bulldog Club (https://thegeorgiabulldogclub.com/get-involved/annual-giving-memberships/football/#)
These donating monies go to capital improvement projects apparently. I don't know if they get "counted" or how, it's one example of how funds for athletics COULD be counted differently by school/program. You donate and hope to get season tickets if you want them.
-
Yeah all sorts of shennanigans can be, and are, played by the various university athletic departments. Some are legal, some are non-GAAP, some are truly shady, and some are probably illegal.
Ultimately though I agree with mb's point that these give us a directionally correct view of who is bringing in the most money, and I agree with CD's and FF's point that there are no surprises here and most of us could probably name most of the top 10 and in reasonably close order without actually seeing the data.
What's always of more interest to me, is how efficiently that revenue is converted into athletic success.
-
The revenue is the most ever recorded other than Oregon’s $391 million in 2020. The Oregon figure included more than $200 million for a renovation to its track and field stadium.
-
The revenue is the most ever recorded other than Oregon’s $391 million in 2020. The Oregon figure included more than $200 million for a renovation to its track and field stadium.
Exactly.
Capital programs really aren't the same as revenue, in the sense that most of us think about it, because we're usually talking about operating revenue, which can be defined as "revenue that an entity produces from its primary business activities."
Most people view things like ticket sales, concession sales, parking income, and television broadcasting rights, as the repeatable "primary business activities" of a university athletics program, while one-off capital fundraising is considered to be something else.
But as far as I know there's no hard and fast rule over how public university athletic programs must report these varying types of positive inbound flows, as long as they remain consistent in their methodologies.
-
What's always of more interest to me, is how efficiently that revenue is converted into athletic success.
I suppose that is the ultimate arbiter, efficiency. I've read that the UGA facilities had fallen way behind when Smart took over, dunno how true that is, but I can accept that folks had been a bit lax in the arms race. They had no indoor football facility for example that was real. So, step one is to upgrade your "look" to impress recruits, or at least be competitive. Success on the field then helps recruiting, the draft, etc. Then you spiral up instead of down.
Oregon had a ton of money obviously, their "efficiency" has been relatively lackluster. Texas hasn't been doing much of late of course, I don't know about all sports. Ohio State will always be up there, and Michigan is coming along, I think both do well in other sports usually, maybe not swimming?
Georgia Tech benefitted greated from the Olympics as they inherited a bunch of stuff. Didn't do anything for football longer term, not an Olympic gig.
Necessary but not sufficient comes to mind.
-
What's always of more interest to me, is how efficiently that revenue is converted into athletic success.
Even there though there is some question of how to define it. Stanford, for example, nearly always wins the Director's Cup which measures overall athletic success. Similarly, according to @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) in the thread about that, Florida is the only other school that has always been top-10.
For this year the top schools in that are:
- Stanford, not on Revenue list due to being private.
- Texas, #2 on Revenue
- Ohio State, 1
- USC, pvt
- UGA, 5
- Michigan, 4
- Virginia, 14
- UNC,?
- Florida, 8
- Tennessee, 18
Are we measuring athletic success this way, or based on the programs that have the most eyes on them?
-
It is A way to view it. Most of us would probably factor in football and bball as primary, and then count lesser sports as being ... lesser.
-
nothing really matters besides wins and losses
mostly football for this group
-
(https://i.imgur.com/B6kWPBX.png)