College Sports Revenue 2011: Changes

Posted on November 22, 2011 by Cap'n Ken

So we have The List, and The List represents the major (football) college sports world as it existed right before everything changed. For the most part, school revenue is reported through June 30, 2011 – the last day of the old order. And since conference moves are all about increasing revenue, we have to assume the dynamic of revenue by conference will change considerably starting with the 2011-2012 reporting year.

But let’s see what this new world looks like with the old world’s revenue. If the changes that began last summer and will continue for the next couple of seasons (everything that’s known to be happening, like Pitt and Syracuse to the ACC even if it’s not in effect yet) are accounted for, here’s what the buckets of revenue would look like by conference:

New Alignment Total Revenue (2010-2011 Revenue)
SEC – $1,190,948,023
Big Ten – $1,050,478,881
ACC – $860,547,975
Pac-12 – $746,349,570
Big 12 – $737,535,914

New Alignment Average Revenue (2010-2011 Revenue)
Big Ten – $87,539,907
SEC – $85,067,716
Big 12 – $73,753,591
Pac-12 – $62,195,798
ACC – $61,467,713

Not considering what realignment will do for conference TV money (which of course is dumb because it’s all about conference TV money – we just can’t quantify that yet), it’s interesting to look at what the changes do to conference revenue. All of the major conferences except the Big 12 are ending up with more members than they had before, so obviously total conference revenue goes up. But average revenue per team sees some interesting changes.

The Big Ten bringing on Nebraska hardly moves the average revenue needle at all. The Huskers are a solid Top 25 revenue program and slide right in to the middle of the conference’s revenue list. Nebraska’s 2010-2011 revenue would have put them No. 6 in the Big Ten, thus the average revenue change if we factor them in is just a $351,000 reduction, or down 0.4%. Average revenue for Big Ten schools will just go up with the addition of the conference title game and those precious cable carriage fees, so we could look at Nebraska as a low-risk, high-reward investment.

By contrast, average SEC revenue falls $3.8 million, or 4.3%, when you factor in the addition of Texas A&M and Missouri. Neither school is a revenue powerhouse, and in the SEC they would rank No. 10 and 11 out of 14 teams. Mike Slive really needs to have some magic up his sleeve if this expansion is going to be a big revenue booster. Expanding to 14 teams doesn’t get you much unless it cracks open those CBS and ESPN contracts. High-risk investment for unknown reward.

The Pac-12 also sees a big drop in average revenue with the addition of Colorado and Utah. Those schools, which would rank No. 7 and 12 in the conference, drive average revenue down $2.7 million, or 4.2%. But we know Larry Scott’s strategy and know it seems to be working. High-risk investment for high reward. And, honestly, when your marquee schools can’t crack the Top 20 in revenue, the risk of radical change might be less than the risk of the status quo.

The ACC sees average revenue drop $1.3 million, or 2%, with the addition of Pittsburgh and Syracuse. But that conference, in expanding to 14 teams without really boosting its football credibility, is playing a different game. The ACC’s biggest risk might have been the potential to be picked apart by expansion elsewhere, so it’s been in preemptive survival mode.

And in the Big 12, bringing in West Virginia and TCU to replace Texas A&M and Missouri is a surprisingly balanced shift. Those changes only drop average revenue by $439,000, or 0.6%. West Virginia and TCU would rank No. 7 and 8 in the conference, and they replace schools ranked No. 6 and 8. Of course, when your top two teams make up 30% of your revenue, shifts elsewhere don’t have a dramatic impact. The Big 12′s game was called survival, and maybe against all odds the conference has come out OK.

And there you have the stage as its set for the new world. For the Big Ten and Pac-12, there’s a strong assumption that these moves will mean increased revenue for the conference and its schools. The Big 12 and ACC have survived, and we’ll see where they go from here. And for the SEC, the big question is how to make a 14-team conference without blockbuster additions stronger than the 12-team powerhouse that was already atop the college sports world. That’ll be an interesting thing to watch.

———–
Previously
- College Sports Revenue 2011: The List
- College Sports Revenue 2011: Auburn closes the Bama gap
- College Sports Revenue 2011: Michigan Money
- College Sports Revenue 2011: The Longhorns’ Big Bucks
- College Sports Revenue 2011: Setting The Stage
———–

Posted in Business of College Sports | Comments Off

College Sports Revenue 2011: The List

Posted on November 15, 2011 by Cap'n Ken

———–
See Also:
- College Sports Revenue 2011: Changes
———–

Well kids, here it is – the 2010 – 2011 ranking of college sports programs by revenue. Below are the Top 100 Division I FBS schools along with their reported revenues, growth from the previous year and last year’s ranking. The as-always caveat is that these are self-reported figures and aren’t really all that comparable across universities. Texas, for example, gets a nice chunk of change from renting out their basketball arena. The Longhorns’ $150 million in revenue is impressive, but just understand it’s not all “sports” revenue in the strictest sense.

All told, Division I-A* revenue in 2010-2011 tops $6.2 billion, with the five major football conferences (sorry, Big East) bringing in $4.3 billion of that total.

But before we run down all of the figures, there’s a conference measure that needs to be taken. As these are figures for the 2010 – 2011 “year” (which typically ends June 30, but that’s not universal for all reports), this is a snapshot of that simpler time before radical conference realignment began. In this world, Nebraska was among 12 actual teams in the Big 12, the Big Ten still has the highly logical 11-team lineup, “Pacific” teams were at most one state away from that ocean and the Big East wasn’t a complete joke of a football conference. OK, the Big East was already a complete joke of a football conference in 2010 – 2011, but not like it’s about to be.

Total Revenue By Conference
SEC: $1,066,935,731
Big Ten: $966,799,125
Big 12: $890,308,681
ACC: $753,069,826
Pac-10: $648,928,528

Average Team Revenue By Conference*
SEC: $88,911,311
Big Ten: $87,890,830
Big 12: $74,192,390
Pac-10: $64,892,853
ACC: $62,755,819

*corrected for poor math initially

It should be noted that Ole Miss and Mississippi State report numbers that seem very much too low (more on that later). But this is what’s reported, so it’s what is tallied.

Obviously things will change significantly in 2011 – 2012. You can see from the rundown how weak of a position the Pac-10 was in, so Larry Scott’s swing for the fences approach was likely not that risky. How things change and shift from the movements of this year and next and associated TV deals and whatnot will be interesting to follow.

And now … The List

School 2010-11 Revenue Growth 2009-10 Rank
1. The University of Texas $150,295,932 4.70% 1
2. Ohio State University $131,815,819 7.02% 3
3. The University of Alabama $123,910,432 -4.17% 2
4. University of Florida $123,008,257 5.57% 4
5. University of Michigan $122,486,490 14.83% 6
6. Pennsylvania State University $116,118,026 8.91% 7
7. Louisiana State University $106,421,671 -3.20% 5
8. University of Oklahoma $104,338,843 5.75% 9
9. Auburn University $103,982,441 12.30% 11
10. The University of Tennessee $102,495,204 1.75% 8
11. University of Notre Dame $94,507,919 3.98% 12
12. University of Wisconsin $93,594,766 -0.33% 10
13. University of Iowa $92,903,555 4.96% 13
14. University of Georgia $92,341,067 4.95% 14
15. University of Arkansas $91,768,113 17.54% 20
16. University of Louisville $87,736,320 38.19% 35
17. Florida State University $86,946,503 15.61% 23
18. University of Oregon $85,740,068 13.70% 22
19. University of Kentucky $84,878,315 6.50% 19
20. University of South Carolina $83,704,667 4.64% 18
21. University of Nebraska $83,679,756 13.88% 25
22. Stanford University $81,125,476 0.00% 16
23. Michigan State University $80,963,182 1.12% 17
24. University of Minnesota $78,924,683 0.00% 24
25. University of Virginia $78,439,006 -4.16% 15
26. University of Southern California $75,707,273 -0.05% 21
27. University of North Carolina $71,369,784 5.56% 31
28. University of Washington $70,231,336 9.68% 34
29. Indiana University $70,172,641 2.04% 29
30. Oklahoma State University $70,123,206 6.95% 32
31. University of Kansas $70,028,683 -2.58% 26
32. Kansas State University $68,875,266 31.44% 51
33. Duke University $67,986,188 -0.80% 30
34. Purdue University $66,066,303 7.41% 38
35. University of California-Los Angeles $66,003,893 6.67% 37
36. Texas A & M University $65,006,338 -9.53% 27
37. University of California-Berkeley $65,006,338 -5.84% 28
38. Boston College $64,078,272 -0.66% 33
39. University of Connecticut $63,043,322 7.80% 40
40. Clemson University $61,174,977 6.27% 42
41. Virginia Polytechnic Institute $61,077,122 5.10% 41
42. University of Miami $60,325,003 7.56% 45
43. Baylor University $59,859,235 10.56% 48
44. University of Colorado $59,329,509 19.81% 56
45. University of Missouri $59,005,954 5.98% 46
46. University of Arizona $58,274,431 3.39% 44
47. West Virginia University $58,003,719 -6.49% 36
48. University of Maryland $57,765,018 11.86% 53
49. University of Illinois $57,539,367 7.55% 49
50. Texas Christian University $56,245,071 7.33% 50
51. Northwestern University $56,214,293 14.91% 59
52. University of Pittsburgh $56,044,309 13.87% 58
53. University of Nevada-Las Vegas $56,027,699 -8.51% 39
54. Vanderbilt University $55,632,098 11.45% 55
55. Arizona State University $55,378,783 -2.95% 43
56. North Carolina State University $54,711,001 8.69% 54
57. Rutgers University $53,436,027 -3.83% 47
58. Syracuse University $51,433,840 4.24% 57
59. Texas Tech University $51,190,970 6.48% 60
60. Oregon State University $50,843,837 -1.57% 52
61. Mississippi State University $49,877,305 30.82% 68
62. University of Mississippi $48,916,161 11.38% 63
63. Iowa State University $48,574,989 3.63% 62
64. Georgia Institute of Technology $46,910,364 -0.16% 61
65. Brigham Young University $45,465,068 10.89% 65
66. University of South Florida $43,494,246 10.98% 67
67. Wake Forest University $42,286,588 0.08% 64
68. University of Memphis $41,724,026 12.92% 70
69. Washington State University $40,617,093 3.21% 66
70. San Diego State University $38,091,533 18.73% 73
71. University of Utah $38,091,533 19.56% 74
72. University of Central Florida $37,821,564 5.97% 72
73. Southern Methodist University $37,471,381 3.99% 71
74. University of Cincinnati $37,367,392 0.72% 69
75. University of Houston $33,473,404 6.05% 75
76. East Carolina University $32,558,927 5.50% 77
77. University of Hawaii $31,607,695 1.69% 76
78. Tulane University $30,200,024 41.72% 98
79. Temple University $29,757,012 3.38% 80
80. Rice University $29,750,082 1.08% 79
81. University of New Mexico $29,261,501 -3.36% 78
82. California State University-Fresno $29,254,566 12.28% 83
83. Boise State University $27,923,751 11.25% 85
84. University of Wyoming $27,800,440 3.04% 81
85. University of Tulsa $27,800,440 5.74% 82
86. Miami University (Ohio) $26,941,891 3.72% 84
87. Colorado State University $26,757,801 18.94% 95
88. Ohio University $25,470,293 6.54% 88
89. University of Alabama at Birmingham $25,103,990 0.14% 86
90. Marshall University $24,690,027 7.58% 93
91. Florida International University $24,606,140 11.82% 96
92. University of Akron $23,922,940 4.04% 92
93. Middle Tennessee State University $23,869,784 24.98% 106
94. University at Buffalo $23,709,153 3.53% 94
95. The University of Texas at El Paso $23,557,446 0.95% 90
96. Central Michigan University $23,353,547 -4.72% 87
97. University of North Texas $22,417,616 34.69% 110
98. Western Michigan University $22,329,269 7.59% 99
99. San Jose State University $22,329,269 8.34% 100
100. Western Kentucky University $22,269,484 -4.19% 91

Some notes on changes from 2009-2010:

- The programs that identify themselves in EIA data as Division I-A* generated $6.25 billion in revenue, up 6% from the previous year.
- The highest reported revenue growth rate among the Top 100 was Tulane, which saw revenues rise 41.7% to $30 million.
- The highest reported revenue decline rate among the Top 100 was Texas A&M, which saw revenues drop 9.5% to $65 million.
- Eighty of the Top 100 programs saw revenue increase while just 20 saw revenue decline.
- No Top 100 school saw revenue drop 10% or more, but 28 Top 100 schools saw revenue rise at least 10%.
- Revenue in the five major football conferences reached $4.3 billion, up 5.6%.
- Only 8 of the 57 major football conference schools saw revenue decline by more than 1% and none saw a decline of more than 10%.
- A total of 42 of the 57 major football conference schools saw revenue rise by more than 1% and 14 saw a rise of more than 10%.

* Unless Chipola College and its $1.7 million in revenue is actually a Division I-A program, I wouldn’t trust the list as reported. Again, it’s self-reported information, so who knows how things get classified.
———–
Previously
- College Sports Revenue 2011: Auburn closes the Bama gap
- College Sports Revenue 2011: Michigan Money
- College Sports Revenue 2011: The Longhorns’ Big Bucks
- College Sports Revenue 2011: Setting The Stage
———–

Posted in Business of College Sports | Comments Off

College Sports Revenue 2011: Auburn closes the Bama gap

Posted on October 30, 2011 by Cap'n Ken

———–
See Also:
- College Sports Revenue 2011: The List
- College Sports Revenue 2011: Changes

———–

As we near November, schools are beginning to file their Equity In Athletics reports for the 2010-2011 reporting period. Right now less than 40% of the Top 100 revenue schools have reported, but some interesting data is out there already. One hint – guess who crossed $150 million in revenue this year?

But perhaps the most interesting data available now is the 2010-2011 revenue of Auburn and Alabama. The two Alabama schools are among five SEC schools which had filed reports as of Oct. 30.

Unsurprisingly, Auburn saw a pretty big jump in its BCS Championship year, vaulting from $92.6 million in revenue for 2009-2010 to $104 million in 2010-2011. More than $10 million of that $11.4 million jump is directly credited to “football revenue”. Insert “Cam Newton was a bargain at $180K” joke here. But suffice it to say Auburn’s 12.3% revenue bump says a good bit about what a BCS title is worth.

And with that jump Auburn becomes the 5th SEC team to cross the $100 million revenue mark (Alabama, Florida, LSU and Tennessee being the others) and the 9th school in the NCAA to reach that level (though Oklahoma will likely also reach it this year, and Wisconsin has a shot to).

Interestingly, Alabama’s revenue actually declined last year, dropping from $129.3 million in 2009-2010 to $123.9 million in 2010-2011. By Alabama’s accounting, “football revenue” actually rose by nearly $5 million (a 6.8% jump to $76.8 million) and the net revenue decline was a result of “not allocated by gender/sport” revenue falling 27.8% from $40 million to $28.9 million. My hunch is that the big unallocated decline was largely a result of a flood of contributions that came in in advance of the opening of the Bryant-Denny expansion in 2010 distorting the numbers somewhat that year, along with a contribution boost during Bama’s BCS title run. In 2008-2009, unallocated revenue was just $28.4 million, so that $40 million looks like a real outlier.

In any event, after Alabama began to seriously pull away from Auburn at the cash register in 2008 and 2009, I know a chart like this will warm an Aubie’s heart:

Alabama vs. Auburn Revenue 2005-2011

No, they’re still not quite on the same level, but the gap has shrunk from $36.7 million in Bama’s BCS title year to just under $20 million after Auburn got theirs.

And, since Georgia comparisons are always relevant to Auburn, the Plainsmen also pulled further away from the Bulldogs this past year. Georgia had decent growth of just under 5% to end up with $92.3 million in revenue, but Auburn’s 12.3% jump has grown the spread between Georgia and Auburn revenue to $11.6 million from $4.6 million a year ago. Auburn will likely also pull closer to Tennessee, which has yet to report for 2011 but brought in $100.7 million in 2009-2010, and conceivably could pass the Vols to claim 4th place in the SEC Money Chase.

———–
Previously
- College Sports Revenue 2011: Michigan Money
- College Sports Revenue 2011: The Longhorns’ Big Bucks
- College Sports Revenue 2011: Setting The Stage
———–

Posted in Business of College Sports | Comments Off

LSU in the Stretch – why 2011 is different

Posted on October 23, 2011 by Cap'n Ken

LSU’s offense is fairly anemic. That’s no surprise after the Tigers sunk to the bottom of the barrel in offense in 2009 (No. 112 in total offense) and 2010 (No. 86). After its third-best yardage day of the season against Auburn yesterday, LSU sits at 78th in total offense with its passing offense barely hanging on to Top 100 territory at No. 99.

But the difference between the LSU team that limped into Auburn last year and couldn’t win a game it should have and this year’s squad that handed the War Eagles their worst SEC beatdown in 15 years is a little farther down the stat sheet. LSU’s passing efficiency rank has rocketed up from 110th last year at this time to 10th now.

While LSU has attempted 14 fewer passes this year, the Tigers have completed two more. And on average each of those completions have gained three more yards this year. LSU has five more passing touchdowns and eight fewer interceptions in 2011. That’s how your team’s passing efficiency goes from 106.18 to 162.38 and from worst to first in the SEC.

Couple the Tigers’ highly-effective passing game with its productive ground game (LSU is averaging 189 yards rushing, up 10 per game from last season) and much better pass protection (.88 sacks allowed per game compared to 1.75 last year) and Les Miles now has a consistent and productive offense to execute his “just as much as we need to do” offensive gameplan.

And when your defense is giving up just 251 yards and 11.5 points per game, an efficient if unspectacular offense will take you a long way. Pile on top of that the nation’s No. 2 turnover margin (netting 1.88 per game) and No. 6 net punting game (flipping the field 41 yards per kick) and LSU is a killing machine. All told, this mild-mannered offense and deadly defense has LSU sitting at No. 15 in scoring at 39.25 points per game.

Of course, running a mild-mannered offense is easier when you’re facing the nation’s No. 75 defense (Auburn) than when you’re facing the No. 1 defense (Alabama). Miles will likely have to get more aggressive against Saban’s guys (No. 1 in rush defense, pass efficiency defense, total defense and scoring defense), but we’ll know early on as he will surely probe the Alabama line and test our running ability. But I think we saw a tiny taste of Bama preparation in the two long throws to Reuben Randle Saturday. No, you’re not going to beat Fonzie’s secondary like that, but I think Miles was trying to build some comfort with throwing long without giving up his actual playbook.

I’ve become pretty comfortable with the Miles Method. The offensive efficiency of this season helps out a lot there. I think there’s a long-term question of whether LSU can continue to attract bigtime playmakers like Randle, Russell Shepard (theoretic playmaker) and the like at wide receiver if throwing becomes a last resort, but I like the strategy. Don’t show future opponents more than you need to and just pound away at the other team.

Get us past Bama and this strategy will serve LSU well.

Posted in College Football, LSU Football, Les Miles | Comments Off

College Sports Revenue 2011: Michigan Money

Posted on October 20, 2011 by Cap'n Ken

———–
See Also:
- College Sports Revenue 2011: Auburn Closes The Bama Gap
- College Sports Revenue 2011: The List
- College Sports Revenue 2011: Changes

———–

Of all the university and athletic department budgets / annual reports I’ve looked at, none comes close to the University of Michigan in the level of detail given about where college sports money comes from and where it’s spent.

The budget report sent to university regents is a great window in to the finances of a major college sports program. And as a hint for 2011-12 Equity In Athletics rankings, the expansion of Michigan Stadium is going to help push Michigan over the $120 million revenue mark. They expect to finish 2010-11 at $121 million.

If we look at the high-level revenue categories Michigan uses, here’s where they expect to make their money:

Source Budgeted Revenue Percent of Total
Spectator Admissions $45.588 Million 37.61%
Conference Distributions $21.948 Million 18.11%
Priority Seating / Other Annual Giving $26.153 Million 21.58%
Corporate Sponsorships $14.328 Million 11.82%
Licensing Royalties $4.774 Million 3.94%
Concessions and Parking $3.006 Million 2.48%
Facilities $1.825 Million 1.51%
Other Income $796,000 0.66%
Investment Income $2.8 Million 2.31%
Total Budgeted Revenue $121.218 Million

Obviously this is a big-time program that has all the right things going for it – huge stadium to sell tickets in, deep traditions and huge fan base to extract extra cash from, sweet conference media deals, great brand to sell to sponsors and on t-shirts, etc. So Michigan’s revenue is probably not going to look a lot like Northwestern’s but probably will look a lot like Ohio State’s or Alabama’s. I’ll call it a presumed model for the big-time, elite athletic program.

The first thing that strikes me is the importance of the fan, and especially the football fan as you dig deeper. Of Michigan’s expected $45.588 million in spectator admissions (which is total revenue less money paid to patsies to come play), $41.315 million comes from football. Another $12.968 million comes from club and suite seating (part of Priority Seating) at Michigan Stadium and we have to presume the big bulk of the $8.736 million Michigan will make in Priority Seating Program contributions comes from football.

Add those things together and easily more than half of Michigan’s total athletics revenue will come directly from people sitting in Michigan Stadium for eight games in the fall.

And as sweet as the Big Ten’s media deals are, the money that flows from the conference to Michigan (including NCAA basketball tournament money and bowl money) is still less than 20% of the department’s revenue (Michigan has an odd accounting where it excludes $1.8 million to be contributed to the university from the conference revenue number, so it actually expects to get $23.749 million from the Big Ten). Conference money no doubt makes up a bigger chunk of revenue at the smaller Big Ten schools, but it’s worth noting that a school like Michigan isn’t so beholden to conference money that it would support risky or questionable moves just for the promise of bigger distributions.

There’s more detail on revenue and expenses if you’d like to check out the linked budget report. I’m not looking to audit or dive real deeply into Michigan’s finances; my point is to show the kind of detail that doesn’t come out on Equity in Athletics reports and rarely is reported out of a university’s budget documents.

———–
Previously
- College Sports Revenue 2011: The Longhorns’ Big Bucks
- College Sports Revenue 2011: Setting The Stage
———–

Posted in Business of College Sports | Comments Off