This is interesting
Wisconsin is #2 which is a surprise to me. Didn't know that its sports generated that much money, but it obviously does.
http://espn.go.com/espn/notebook/_/id/10852077/fbs-school-spending-2012-2013-espn-magazine
They sell out every football game and close to every basketball game.
See the graphic. It says Bucky makes more than 50% of its revenue (white area of the circle) from something other than football and basketball. No other school comes close.
What is this? Hockey, Soccer, Tennis, Track, Swimming,Baseball (do they have baseball)?
Added
Even though Bucky is #2 in revenue, their football revenue of $50 million is the LOWEST of any of the top 10 schools.
Bucky is unique, they are probably a top 20 school in revenue WITHOUT football and basketball. Guessing from the graph they make $80 to $85 million in the supposed "non-revenue" sports.
(http://espn.go.com/magazine/CollegeFinance_FINAL01.jpg)
Quote from: Heisenberg on May 02, 2014, 11:53:31 AM
See the graphic. It says Bucky makes more than 50% of its revenue (white area of the circle) from something other than football and basketball. No other school comes close.
What is this? Hockey, Soccer, Tennis, Track, Swimming,Baseball (do they have baseball)?
Even though Bucky is #2 in revenue, their football revenue of $50 million is the LOWEST of any of he top 10 schools.
Bucky is unique, they are probably a top 20 school in revenue WITHOUT football and basketball. Guessing from the graph they make $80 to $85 million in the supposed "non-revenue" sports.
I've got to think that the majority of it is from Hockey.
Ohio State as 24 million in surplus. I'm thinking its time to look again at non-profit status.
This is one of these reports that is difficult really to determine if they were using apples-to-apples comparisons from each school.
For instance, are they centralizing licensing at UW but at other schools do they assign football licensing to the football team?
What about donations? Are they including gifts for construction or renovation in there? Wisconsin just built a new annex for its hockey teams. Is that included in here?
Like a lot of these things, I really don't know what this tell you about anything.
Quote from: LittleMurs on May 02, 2014, 12:02:40 PM
Ohio State as 24 million in surplus. I'm thinking its time to look again at non-profit status.
That's why you should call them not-for-profits. They are allowed to be profitable. Their profits don't benefit any owners however.
Quote from: LittleMurs on May 02, 2014, 11:59:46 AM
I've got to think that the majority of it is from Hockey.
A majority is
at least $40 to $42 million in revenues. Compare to $50 million for football and $19 million for basketball.
Also, according to Forbes, the New York Islanders make $61 million in revenue. So, Bucky Hockey makes about as much as an NHL team?
http://www.forbes.com/teams/new-york-islanders/
Does that sound right to you? It sounds wildly off to me.
Hockey doesn't make nearly that much at UW. As I said, I think we are talking about centralized revenue of some such.
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 02, 2014, 12:08:37 PM
Hockey doesn't make nearly that much at UW. As I said, I think we are talking about centralized revenue of some such.
I think you're right here ... Bucky made the list as #2 based on some funny money accounting in the "other" category. Add up their football and basketball revenues only and they are not a top 10 team.
Quote from: Heisenberg on May 02, 2014, 12:10:35 PM
I think you're right here ... Bucky made the list as #2 based on some funny money accounting on the "other" category. Add up their football and basketball revenues only and they are not a top 10 team.
It's not "funny money." It's just different ways that different schools allocate cost and revenue. This is the same type of argument that is made when we see how much Marquette spends on men's basketball. I mean, does Marquette really spend more than pretty much everyone on basketball, or are costs (and revenues) allocated to the basketball program that at other schools are centralized.
Until you get an apples-to-apples comparison, benchmarking this way doesn't work.
Quote from: Heisenberg on May 02, 2014, 11:53:31 AM
See the graphic. It says Bucky makes more than 50% of its revenue (white area of the circle) from something other than football and basketball. No other school comes close.
What is this? Hockey, Soccer, Tennis, Track, Swimming,Baseball (do they have baseball)?
Added
Even though Bucky is #2 in revenue, their football revenue of $50 million is the LOWEST of any of the top 10 schools.
Bucky is unique, they are probably a top 20 school in revenue WITHOUT football and basketball. Guessing from the graph they make $80 to $85 million in the supposed "non-revenue" sports.
(http://espn.go.com/magazine/CollegeFinance_FINAL01.jpg)
I see. Thanks for pointing that out
I find this very revealing. Many Badger fans make it seem like their school competes in tthe big bad world of athletics and yet they, the underdog survive.
I think these graphics can put to rest that notion. They are part of that big machine in every way.
...AND ALL ON THE TAX PAYERS DIME!
Quote from: ThatDude on May 02, 2014, 11:44:39 AM
This is interesting
Wisconsin is #2 which is a surprise to me. Didn't know that its sports generated that much money, but it obviously does.
http://espn.go.com/espn/notebook/_/id/10852077/fbs-school-spending-2012-2013-espn-magazine
Take all of these with a grain of salt. The expense side of the equation is different from school to school. Coaching salaries portion paid by the school, vs the department for example. Who is paying for the maintenance, electricity, water, etc for Camp Randall or the Kohl...is it the athletic department or is that line item hitting general plant costs. So on and so forth.
As such, determining profitability in these exercises is very difficult because each school accounts for revenues and expenses differently, making the P & L very difficult to compare from one entity to another. One school's athletic department can look like it is profitable, when in fact many of the expenses are covered by another part of the U. and a comparison to another school includes those expenses in the AD budget.
Top 10 is nice. But I'm more interested in how the smaller programs fare. Football may generate more revenue but I think for those smaller schools it make actually cause a deficit.
Quote from: bilsu on May 02, 2014, 11:51:38 AM
They sell out every football game and close to every basketball game.
I'm being picky, but they don't sell out every football game. They are 1,000 to 3,000 in games.
Quote from: Heisenberg on May 02, 2014, 12:07:52 PM
A majority is at least $40 to $42 million in revenues. Compare to $50 million for football and $19 million for basketball.
Also, according to Forbes, the New York Islanders make $61 million in revenue. So, Bucky Hockey makes about as much as an NHL team?
http://www.forbes.com/teams/new-york-islanders/
Does that sound right to you? It sounds wildly off to me.
So your point is that they must have made it from swimming?
Becky's performance is all the more amazing in that Wisconsin is a comparatively small state with intense sports competition from collegiate and professional sports.
In Wisconsin, for example, Becky competes for media attention, sports dollars and fan attention with the Green Bay Packers, Milwaukee Brewers, Milwaukee Bucks and Marquette's basketball team. Not to mention the fact that Becky is sitting on the edge of another major sports market. Whoever runs marketing, sales and merchandising has a case study in success.
If you look at some of the schools on the list, Tennessee has only marginal competition against the Titans, the Vanderbilt Commodores (very marginal), the Memphis Grizzlies and a host of smaller schools (MTSU, Memphis). In Alabama, the only competition is Auburn for media attention.
Quote from: dgies9156 on May 03, 2014, 09:32:08 AM
Becky's performance is all the more amazing in that Wisconsin is a comparatively small state with intense sports competition from collegiate and professional sports.
In Wisconsin, for example, Becky competes for media attention, sports dollars and fan attention with the Green Bay Packers, Milwaukee Brewers, Milwaukee Bucks and Marquette's basketball team. Not to mention the fact that Becky is sitting on the edge of another major sports market. Whoever runs marketing, sales and merchandising has a case study in success.
If you look at some of the schools on the list, Tennessee has only marginal competition against the Titans, the Vanderbilt Commodores (very marginal), the Memphis Grizzlies and a host of smaller schools (MTSU, Memphis). In Alabama, the only competition is Auburn for media attention.
Don't agree. There isn't a major public university to compete with in state. Look at Michigan or Indiana or other states with multiple large universities. Wisconsin has a Top 25 enrollment.
This small market thing people like to portray is a myth. Look at Minnesota with 50,000+ enrollment and they like to portray the small market thing. They have no competition in state whatsoever.
This fake underdog thing isn't true when you are SECOND in revenue. This is akin to the Boston Red Sox saying they are small market team because Massachusetts is a small state and the Yankees have the largest market.
Quote from: LittleMurs on May 02, 2014, 08:06:55 PM
So your point is that they must have made it from swimming?
Actually I was thinking it came from Quidditch.
Quote from: dgies9156 on May 03, 2014, 09:32:08 AM
Becky's performance is all the more amazing in that Wisconsin is a comparatively small state with intense sports competition from collegiate and professional sports.
In Wisconsin, for example, Becky competes for media attention, sports dollars and fan attention with the Green Bay Packers, Milwaukee Brewers, Milwaukee Bucks and Marquette's basketball team. Not to mention the fact that Becky is sitting on the edge of another major sports market. Whoever runs marketing, sales and merchandising has a case study in success.
If you look at some of the schools on the list, Tennessee has only marginal competition against the Titans, the Vanderbilt Commodores (very marginal), the Memphis Grizzlies and a host of smaller schools (MTSU, Memphis). In Alabama, the only competition is Auburn for media attention.
Again you're falling into the trap in believing they made it in Football and Basketball. They did not, look at the graphic. The majority came from "other." No other school is even close to have a majority of their revenues coming from "other." Add up football and basketball only and they are well behind all the other top 10 programs.
The answer is above ... the "other" category is all about "creative accounting" (or "funny money accounting").
I guess we now know what happening to the former Enron accountants.
They must be counting donations as "other" revenue. Other schools will have a required donation amount in order to purchase season tickets, and they might account for all of it as ticket revenue. I highly doubt any of their sports outside of football and basketball are generating any kind of significant revenue.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on May 03, 2014, 09:45:30 AM
Don't agree. There isn't a major public university to compete with in state. Look at Michigan or Indiana or other states with multiple large universities. Wisconsin has a Top 25 enrollment.
This small market thing people like to portray is a myth. Look at Minnesota with 50,000+ enrollment and they like to portray the small market thing. They have no competition in state whatsoever.
This fake underdog thing isn't true when you are SECOND in revenue. This is akin to the Boston Red Sox saying they are small market team because Massachusetts is a small state and the Yankees have the largest market.
No, but you assume they only compete against colleges. In Alabama, for example, the University of Alabama is THE pro team. They compete against no one except Auburn. Becky, as I noted, competes against the Packers, Brewers and Bucks as well as us for attention.
As to funny money, lets face it. As the NCAA would say, "it all comes back to football." Whatever you call it, unless they're making more money than most NHL teams on hockey, the white part of the graph is football- and basketball-related income. The cost accounting structure for Becky is less transparent because the red rodent does not report its financial condition and statement of financial performance (and cash flows) using GAAP as practiced by private corporations in the United States.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 02, 2014, 02:31:01 PM
Take all of these with a grain of salt. The expense side of the equation is different from school to school. Coaching salaries portion paid by the school, vs the department for example. Who is paying for the maintenance, electricity, water, etc for Camp Randall or the Kohl...is it the athletic department or is that line item hitting general plant costs. So on and so forth.
As such, determining profitability in these exercises is very difficult because each school accounts for revenues and expenses differently, making the P & L very difficult to compare from one entity to another. One school's athletic department can look like it is profitable, when in fact many of the expenses are covered by another part of the U. and a comparison to another school includes those expenses in the AD budget.
True, it is very easy to allocate costs around, especially those that can be more general and administrative in nature (maintenance, utilities, depreciation, etc.). However, this article doesn't touch on expenses at all. This is all revenue, which is a lot more difficult to just move around.
Baseball may be the 3rd most popular sport in the U.S.
No baseball at Wisconsin.
Quote from: Boozemon Barro on May 03, 2014, 12:09:30 PM
They must be counting donations as "other" revenue. Other schools will have a required donation amount in order to purchase season tickets, and they might account for all of it as ticket revenue. I highly doubt any of their sports outside of football and basketball are generating any kind of significant revenue.
So sales revenue must be included. Wisconsin branded sweatshirts at Kohls, Target, etc. must contribute to the revenue.
If this is the case, this is due to two things: strong state identity by Wisconsinites and the lack of a major 2nd state school.
Wisconsin is the flag school but the others are almost rans to an outsider: UW Milwaukee, UW Green Bay, etc.
Texas has TAMU, Texas Tech.
California has the UC system (UCLA, Cal) and some of the major CSU schools (San Diego State, Fresno State, San Jose State).
The white W on a red flag is easily identifiable by every resident of WI and they pretty much see it as representative of themselves and their state. So, buying WI themed items with no other state competitor is probably why their "other revenues" are so high.
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on May 03, 2014, 03:02:17 PM
So sales revenue must be included. Wisconsin branded sweatshirts at Kohls, Target, etc. must contribute to the revenue.
If this is the case, this is due to two things: strong state identity by Wisconsinites and the lack of a major 2nd state school.
Wisconsin is the flag school but the others are almost rans to an outsider: UW Milwaukee, UW Green Bay, etc.
Texas has TAMU, Texas Tech.
California has the UC system (UCLA, Cal) and some of the major CSU schools (San Diego State, Fresno State, San Jose State).
The white W on a red flag is easily identifiable by every resident of WI and they pretty much see it as representative of themselves and their state. So, buying WI themed items with no other state competitor is probably why their "other revenues" are so high.
Best response to this post. Thanks for posting.
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on May 03, 2014, 03:02:17 PM
Texas has TAMU, Texas Tech.
They also have Baylor, TCU, and to a lesser degree Houston, Rice, SMU, and all the UT and TAMU system schools
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on May 03, 2014, 03:02:17 PM
So sales revenue must be included. Wisconsin branded sweatshirts at Kohls, Target, etc. must contribute to the revenue.
If this is the case, this is due to two things: strong state identity by Wisconsinites and the lack of a major 2nd state school.
Wisconsin is the flag school but the others are almost rans to an outsider: UW Milwaukee, UW Green Bay, etc.
Texas has TAMU, Texas Tech.
California has the UC system (UCLA, Cal) and some of the major CSU schools (San Diego State, Fresno State, San Jose State).
The white W on a red flag is easily identifiable by every resident of WI and they pretty much see it as representative of themselves and their state. So, buying WI themed items with no other state competitor is probably why their "other revenues" are so high.
Honestly, this sounds like made up rationalization. Only a Bucky Homer thinks WI is even I the same zip code as Michigan, Ohio State, Texas or Alabama. It probably not even in the same zip code as some schools not I the top 10 like Notre Dame and UCLA.
You guys must not know hockey...This is a pretty big revenue stream for the UW athletic department!
Mens hockey ranks top 3 nationally in attendance year after year. They average a little over 10,000 fans a game and average 70% capacity of the Kohl Center.
The women's Badger hockey team on the other hand broke the NCAA attendance record each year from 2011 to 2013. On average they fill the LaBahn arena at 75% capacity. A few years ago I was at the women's Badgers vs Gophers game at the Kohl and there was about 10,000 fans in attendance.
2011 ticket revenue by sport
Football = $18.285 million
Mens Basketball = $5.369 million
Mens Hockey = $3.398 million
Many of the other schools on the list do not have 3 sports that can generate as much revenue as the Badgers football, basketball, and hockey teams.
Here is a pretty good breakdown of UW's revenue streams...
http://businessofcollegesports.com/2012/05/03/wisconsins-athletic-department-budget-revenues/
UW reported $59 million in donations and contributions last year, the most in FBS. That is over a third of their entire revenue.
Interestingly, like most programs, they reported expenses of $0 for administrative and support staff salaries and benefits. Just one of the ways they doctor the books.
The UW system also typically subsidizes athletics still to the tune of around $5-10M per year.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 03, 2014, 04:46:20 PM
They also have Baylor, TCU, and to a lesser degree Houston, Rice, SMU, and all the UT and TAMU system schools
But Baylor, TCU, Rice, and SMU were left out because they're private institutions. Same reason I left out MU for WI and Stanford and USC for CA.
I know UTEP, North Texas, and UTSA are other state schools. Houston is a big public one too.
Quote from: Heisenberg on May 03, 2014, 05:09:44 PM
Honestly, this sounds like made up rationalization. Only a Bucky Homer thinks WI is even I the same zip code as Michigan, Ohio State, Texas or Alabama. It probably not even in the same zip code as some schools not I the top 10 like Notre Dame and UCLA.
Not really. Look at all of the top 10 schools mentioned: they're the flagship public school of their state. Alumni pride and state identification are big vehicles for their marketing and revenue streams.
Nonsense to "rank" based on these numbers.
The numbers are not good comparables.
Quote from: forgetful on May 03, 2014, 10:50:20 PM
UW reported $59 million in donations and contributions last year, the most in FBS. That is over a third of their entire revenue.
Interestingly, like most programs, they reported expenses of $0 for administrative and support staff salaries and benefits. Just one of the ways they doctor the books.
The UW system also typically subsidizes athletics still to the tune of around $5-10M per year.
I'm not sure we have to use negative phrases like "doctoring the books." They are doing nothing illegal. Nothing unethical. Every school accounts for this stuff differently. That is why the entire exercise is flawed.
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on May 04, 2014, 02:30:52 AM
Not really. Look at all of the top 10 schools mentioned: they're the flagship public school of their state. Alumni pride and state identification are big vehicles for their marketing and revenue streams.
College Licensing Corporation (CLC) has Bucky as 13th in revenues last year:
http://www.clc.com/News/Rankings-Annual-2012-13.aspx
And 15th in the latest quarterly numbers:
http://www.clc.com/News/Archived-Rankings/Rankings-Q3-2013.aspx
They are NOT a top 10 school based on merchandising, let alone number 2.
Also as noted above, Hockey brought in $3 million of the $42ish million of "other" revenue. Bucky could drop hockey tomorrow and it amount to little more than a rounding error (less than 10%) to other revenue.
I agree that the various universities account for things differently and the difference between #2 and #10 is somewhat flawed.
That said, with all due respect to the Wisconsinites on the board , it is very Wisconsin to try to discredit that Wisconsin is not one of the big universities with all of the advantages that go with it. Wisconsin tries to play the little guy in every way and it is a lie.
Wisconsin is not the little guy. Get over it. They may not be the Yankees of college sports but they are the Red Sox.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 02, 2014, 02:31:01 PM
Take all of these with a grain of salt. The expense side of the equation is different from school to school. Coaching salaries portion paid by the school, vs the department for example. Who is paying for the maintenance, electricity, water, etc for Camp Randall or the Kohl...is it the athletic department or is that line item hitting general plant costs. So on and so forth.
As such, determining profitability in these exercises is very difficult because each school accounts for revenues and expenses differently, making the P & L very difficult to compare from one entity to another. One school's athletic department can look like it is profitable, when in fact many of the expenses are covered by another part of the U. and a comparison to another school includes those expenses in the AD budget.
Jams
You may or may not know the answer but many here have referenced Bo Ryan getting a tax payer funded state pension. The state liability should only be on that portion of his salary actually paid by the university. How much of his salary is funded by the state v boosters?
Quote from: keefe on May 04, 2014, 11:00:19 AM
Jams
You may or may not know the answer but many here have referenced Bo Ryan getting a tax payer funded state pension. The state liability should only be on that portion of his salary actually paid by the university. How much of his salary is funded by the state v boosters?
No Ryan's contract, relative to sources of funding, is quite unique.
More importantly, I think I have a crush on his daughter.
Quote from: WarriorInDC on May 03, 2014, 12:55:29 PM
True, it is very easy to allocate costs around, especially those that can be more general and administrative in nature (maintenance, utilities, depreciation, etc.). However, this article doesn't touch on expenses at all. This is all revenue, which is a lot more difficult to just move around.
Very true and a fair point. Though the article did say "what colleges spent and made" in 2012-13.
Also you have to consider that athletic departments are not for profit entities, so most will actively try to spend every dime they make. This is important to know whenever you find yourself in a pay for play discussion. When someone brings up that most athletic departments operate in the red, you can immediately dismiss all of their opinions because they have no idea what they are talking about.
Quote from: Boozemon Barro on May 04, 2014, 01:53:14 PM
Also you have to consider that athletic departments are not for profit entities, so most will actively try to spend every dime they make. This is important to know whenever you find yourself in a pay for play discussion. When someone brings up that most athletic departments operate in the red, you can immediately dismiss all of their opinions because they have no idea what they are talking about.
LOL. "You can immediately dismiss all of their opinions because they have no idea what they are talking about." Uhm, ok.
It can't be because their revenues simply do not match their expenses? Made worse by having to pay coaches that are fired and still being paid, or underperforming teams that do not drive attendance that they thought they would (thus lower revenues). Please, plenty of people know what they are talking about. Most are not self sufficient, and need student fees, support from the university, etc to operate in the black or break even, and even then many are not.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/
http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/08/13/marylands-athletic-department-was-21-million-in-the-red-last-year/
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 04, 2014, 08:24:16 AM
I'm not sure we have to use negative phrases like "doctoring the books." They are doing nothing illegal. Nothing unethical. Every school accounts for this stuff differently. That is why the entire exercise is flawed.
Sorry, didn't mean to use the phrase to indicate anything illegal, shouldn't have used that phrase. Maybe clever accounting would have been a better choice of words.
Quote from: Heisenberg on May 04, 2014, 09:53:35 AM
College Licensing Corporation (CLC) has Bucky as 13th in revenues last year:
http://www.clc.com/News/Rankings-Annual-2012-13.aspx
And 15th in the latest quarterly numbers:
http://www.clc.com/News/Archived-Rankings/Rankings-Q3-2013.aspx
They are NOT a top 10 school based on merchandising, let alone number 2.
Also as noted above, Hockey brought in $3 million of the $42ish million of "other" revenue. Bucky could drop hockey tomorrow and it amount to little more than a rounding error (less than 10%) to other revenue.
Hmmm. 6 of the 10 teams mentioned in the annual numbers made the top 10 list as well. So, I think you're right that licensing isn't the "bigger" number as it seems.
Interesting of note, as an aside, are the profiles, royalties and fees WI and MU are attributed:
MU: http://www.clc.com/Clients/Client-Detail.aspx?id=65&t=1
UW: http://www.clc.com/Clients/Client-Detail.aspx?id=165&t=1
https://b2.caspio.com/dp.asp?AppKey=900c1000ea466e223e104a22814aC (https://b2.caspio.com/dp.asp?AppKey=900c1000ea466e223e104a22814aC)
The official breakdowns are available there. They don't go by sport, but as I mentioned above the vast majority of UW's revenues were donations and contributions.
Quote from: forgetful on May 04, 2014, 03:51:18 PM
https://b2.caspio.com/dp.asp?AppKey=900c1000ea466e223e104a22814aC (https://b2.caspio.com/dp.asp?AppKey=900c1000ea466e223e104a22814aC)
The official breakdowns are available there. They don't go by sport, but as I mentioned above the vast majority of UW's revenues were donations and contributions.
Are donations bad? Is it a bad thing if someone donates millions into a swimming, wrestling or hockey program?
Quote from: Heisenberg on May 03, 2014, 05:09:44 PM
Honestly, this sounds like made up rationalization. Only a Bucky Homer thinks WI is even I the same zip code as Michigan, Ohio State, Texas or Alabama. It probably not even in the same zip code as some schools not I the top 10 like Notre Dame and UCLA.
But for the people of Wisconsin, that's exactly how they feel. It's the only game in town for college football, one of only two high majors for basketball, it's part of the state capital, etc, etc.
On Saturdays from August until November, Wisconsin-madison owns the state. Just the way it is. Nothing is going to change that.
Quote from: ThatDude on May 04, 2014, 03:55:04 PM
Are donations bad? Is it a bad thing if someone donates millions into a swimming, wrestling or hockey program?
No, it's not recurring.
Was the $58 million in donation to fund a project, like a new facility?
Northwestern just broke ground on a $200 million athletic complex that will be done in 18 months. So they will be #1 next year as they had a massive capital campaign to fund it.
Added LaterThe link above has data back to 2008.
UW Donations & Contributions2013 = $58.9 million
2012 = $19.7 million
2011 = $14.9 million
2010 = $19.2 million
2009 = $16.2 million
2008 = $18.8 million
I'm guessing they had a capital campaign in 2013 to raise money (can anyone confirm). If so, in 2014 they will fall back to $15 to $20 million in donations and drop out of the overall top 10.