Top 10 in Revenue

[ThatDude]

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

[bilsu]

They sell out every football game and close to every basketball game.

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[Dawson Rental]

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.

[Dawson Rental]

Ohio State as 24 million in surplus.  I'm thinking its time to look again at non-profit status.

[GGGG]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[GGGG]

Hockey doesn't make nearly that much at UW.  As I said, I think we are talking about centralized revenue of some such.

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[ThatDude]

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.

I see. Thanks for pointing that out

[MarquetteDano]

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.

[muwarrior69]

...AND ALL ON THE TAX PAYERS DIME!

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

[bradley center bat]

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.

[Dawson Rental]

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?

[dgies9156]

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.

[MarquetteDano]

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

So your point is that they must have made it from swimming?

Actually I was thinking it came from Quidditch.

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[Boozemon Barro]

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.

[dgies9156]

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.

[WarriorInNYC]

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.