Athletic Revenue in 2011-12 By BCS Schools

Posted 624 day(s) ago 2445 Views 38 Replies
Results 1 to 39 of 39
  1. #1
    OU48A's Avatar
    Posts
    13,179
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Norman

    OU Logo Athletic Revenue in 2011-12 By BCS Schools

    These figures would not include the new OU TV network revenue that should produce a few more million.





    http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/12/alabama _and_auburn_stay_among.html#incart_river_default

  2. #2
    mushu405's Avatar
    Posts
    1,317
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma City

    uh......nice post?

  3. #3
    And we expect the OU TV network to add $5,000,000 to that total?

  4. #4
    BoulderSooner's Avatar
    Posts
    1,995
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma City

    Originally Posted by OnlyOne View Post
    And we expect the OU TV network to add $5,000,000 to that total?
    reported 7 mil more

  5. #5
    Wow USC is much further down the list than I would have expected.

  6. #6
    OU48A's Avatar
    Posts
    13,179
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Norman

    OU is still $22.4 million ahead of the pokes..... but all we ever hear from the local media is how much money the pokes have….
    The local media is part of the OSU spin and hype machine.

    The difference over a long period of time makes a big difference.
    It will keep OU ahead of OSU in the facilities arms race.



    + OU could still tap into its donors for some major donations if it’s really needed.

  7. #7
    how far will penn st fall from now to the end of the sanctions? if you watched any of their games at the end of the season the stadium looked like it was only 2/3 full or less

  8. #8
    Originally Posted by drspencer View Post
    Wow USC is much further down the list than I would have expected.
    Presumably, you have to sell tickets to your football games to generate revenue. They can't even sell out against ND...
    The following users like this post: drspencer


  9. #9
    Originally Posted by Jbaker View Post
    Presumably, you have to sell tickets to your football games to generate revenue. They can't even sell out against ND...
    True, I just assumed because of their national popularity that they would be making more money than that.

  10. #10
    OU48A's Avatar
    Posts
    13,179
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Norman

    A point worth mentioning is that compared to Norman the cost of living is higher in most of these other locations.
    Norman is supposedly the second cheapest city in the US to live in.
    We might get a little more bang for our bucks?

  11. #11
    OU48A's Avatar
    Posts
    13,179
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Norman

    Also adding to OU’s intrinsic value is the fact that OU is probably one of the few with a long waiting list to buy season tickets.

  12. #12
    The real question is where is A&M?

  13. #13
    Originally Posted by keefsmangledfingers View Post
    The real question is where is A&M?
    Right behind the University of Kansas.
    The following users like this post: Keef


  14. #14
    SoonerBounce Guest
    SoonerBounce's Avatar
    Posts
    n/a
    where's the actual list?

    And does revenue really matter? it's all about profits!

  15. #15
    Originally Posted by SoonerBounce View Post
    where's the actual list?

    And does revenue really matter? it's all about profits!
    Follow the link in the first post.

  16. #16
    Originally Posted by Jbaker View Post
    Presumably, you have to sell tickets to your football games to generate revenue. They can't even sell out against ND...
    They averaged 87K this season.

  17. #17
    OU48A's Avatar
    Posts
    13,179
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Norman

    Originally Posted by SoonerBounce View Post
    where's the actual list?
    Please feel free to post the list… anyone

  18. #18
    bushmaster06's Avatar
    Posts
    24,243
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    balls deep

    Originally Posted by palisooner View Post
    They averaged 87K this season.
    that's pretty shitty.

  19. #19
    Surprising that OU is only getting 56% of it's revenue from football, which is well less than most the schools listed near the top of this list. Very hard to understand where the other 44% is being generated, especially with hoops being down.

    As for USC and the rest of the Pac-12: 1) They just got a much better TV contract which started this season (these rankings are for last year) and 2) most of their stadiums are older and don't have much in the way of suites, which is the real cash cow of football revenue.

  20. #20
    oudavid1's Avatar
    Posts
    4,828
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NW Oklahoma City

    Profit numbers > revenue numbers.

    We learn very little.

  21. #21
    oSuJeff97's Avatar
    Posts
    1,377
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    The gray place between expectations and reality.

    Originally Posted by OU48A View Post
    OU is still $22.4 million ahead of the pokes..... but all we ever hear from the local media is how much money the pokes have….
    The local media is part of the OSU spin and hype machine.

    The difference over a long period of time makes a big difference.
    It will keep OU ahead of OSU in the facilities arms race.
    Some perspective here is always helpful.

    Nobody in the "local media" ever claims that OSU has/gets more money than OU. OU has a considerable head start.

    That said, you cannot deny that the gap has closed considerably. Did you happen to notice that OSU was third highest Big 12 school on that list, trailing only Texas and OU?

    OSU generated more money than the following schools last year: Nebraska, Florida State, Texas A&M, Michigan State, Oregon, UCLA, Clemson, West Virginia, and Missouri, among others.

    I can assure you that none of the stuff above would have been true 10 years ago. In fact, until about 5 or 6 years ago, OSU was consistently about 10th in the Big 12 in athletic department revenue. We've been steadily climbing every year.

  22. #22
    TheLadiesMike's Avatar
    Posts
    4,751
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Sooner Nation

    Originally Posted by oSuJeff97 View Post
    I can assure you that none of the stuff above would have been true 10 years ago. In fact, until about 5 or 6 years ago, OSU was consistently about 10th in the Big 12 in athletic department revenue. We've been steadily climbing every year.
    So you're saying OSU is on the rise?
    The following users like this post: oSuJeff97


  23. #23
    Coach's Avatar
    Posts
    10,218
    Join Date
    Apr 2012

    Athletic Revenue in 2011-12 By BCS Schools

    Originally Posted by oSuJeff97 View Post
    Some perspective here is always helpful.

    Nobody in the "local media" ever claims that OSU has/gets more money than OU. OU has a considerable head start.

    That said, you cannot deny that the gap has closed considerably. Did you happen to notice that OSU was third highest Big 12 school on that list, trailing only Texas and OU?

    OSU generated more money than the following schools last year: Nebraska, Florida State, Texas A&M, Michigan State, Oregon, UCLA, Clemson, West Virginia, and Missouri, among others.

    I can assure you that none of the stuff above would have been true 10 years ago. In fact, until about 5 or 6 years ago, OSU was consistently about 10th in the Big 12 in athletic department revenue. We've been steadily climbing every year.
    Man think where Osu could be if they had a fan base.

  24. #24
    OU48A's Avatar
    Posts
    13,179
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Norman

    Originally Posted by oSuJeff97 View Post
    Some perspective here is always helpful.

    Nobody in the "local media" ever claims that OSU has/gets more money than OU. OU has a considerable head start.

    That said, you cannot deny that the gap has closed considerably. Did you happen to notice that OSU was third highest Big 12 school on that list, trailing only Texas and OU?

    OSU generated more money than the following schools last year: Nebraska, Florida State, Texas A&M, Michigan State, Oregon, UCLA, Clemson, West Virginia, and Missouri, among others.

    I can assure you that none of the stuff above would have been true 10 years ago. In fact, until about 5 or 6 years ago, OSU was consistently about 10th in the Big 12 in athletic department revenue. We've been steadily climbing every year.
    Yes we all know about OSU’s increased revenue relative to others. And yes it’s much better than it once was but you would be living in denial or a life of ignorance if you don’t think the local media hasn’t been talking up OSU/TBP finances and facilities. We have heard claims about OSU now having the best facilities in the conference and some of the very best in the nation…. when in fact they don’t even have an Indoor practice facility constructed yet.

    More than a few in our local media took and ran with the statement Switzer said about OSU’s new facilities and played it up for all it was worth. Several of the talk show host do in fact talk like OSU has more money than OU. The fact is very few of them have know the firm facts and figures. All they see is something that is shiny and new without digging any deeper and are seriously lacking in their perspective.






    22.4 million X 10 years, X 20 years, X 30 years, X 40 years X 50 years does a lot more than what even Pickens can keep up with. This doesn’t even bring OU’s significant donors into account; some of them have more money than Pickens.

  25. #25
    Makes no sense that bama and ahhhburn rake in that type of cash in a poor, small state. Bama on par with Texass is just unfathonable.

    Somebody is playing with the numbers.

    SEC SEC SEC

  26. #26
    OU48A's Avatar
    Posts
    13,179
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Norman

    The last I knew OSU took about 7 million dollars of state revenue to help fund its athletic programs.
    The last l knew OU’s academics received about 7 million dollars from its athletic department to help run the University.
    Personally I would like to see both end, but it doesn’t take a genius to see which university is delivering a better deal for the tax payers in our state.
    This OSU practice gives any tax payer from Oklahoma the right to complain about OSU athletic funding.

  27. #27
    oSuJeff97's Avatar
    Posts
    1,377
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    The gray place between expectations and reality.

    Yes we all know about OSU’s increased revenue relative to others. And yes it’s much better than it once was but you would be living in denial or a life of ignorance if you don’t think the local media hasn’t been talking up OSU/TBP finances and facilities.
    OK, but what do facilities that are already in the ground have to do with athletic department revenune in one particular year?

    Also, are donations for capital projects included in these numbers? I kind of doubt it.

    Otherwise, OSU would have been far and away #1 in the nation in whatever year Pickens made his big donation. I believe these numbers are just income from ticket sales, licencing, media deals, suites, etc. The also probably include donations tied specifically to donar seating at football and basketball.

    when in fact they don’t even have an Indoor practice facility constructed yet.
    Yeah. Keep beating that dead horse. The IPF will be up and running in a few months.

    More than a few in our local media took and ran with the statement Switzer said about OSU’s new facilities and played it up for all it was worth. Several of the talk show host do in fact talk like OSU has more money than OU. The fact is very few of them have know the firm facts and figures. All they see is something that is shiny and new without digging any deeper and are seriously lacking in their perspective.
    You're the one who seems to lack perspective. The facilities are already in the ground. The real question is not does OU pull in more revenue -- the question should be -- is the marginal difference in revenue enough to make a difference in the long run?

    And let's not forget that we are talking about REVENUE numbers here. Unless you can quote me exact numbers for the expesnses of both the OSU and OU athletic departments, you have no idea if that $20MM or so per year makes any difference. What if the OU athletic department has $10-15MM higher expenses than the OSU athletic department? Then that $20MM difference doesn't make all that much difference.

    And finally, your little math problem that you put together just assumes the status quo. Again, if you would have looked at those numbers 10 years ago, I bet the difference would have been more like $50-70MM.

    The last I knew OSU took about 7 million dollars of state revenue to help fund its athletic programs.
    The last l knew OU’s academics received about 7 million dollars from its athletic department to help run the University.
    Personally I would like to see both end, but it doesn’t take a genius to see which university is delivering a better deal for the tax payers in our state.
    This OSU practice gives any tax payer from Oklahoma the right to complain about OSU athletic funding.
    Source/link on any of that?

  28. #28
    oSuJeff97's Avatar
    Posts
    1,377
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    The gray place between expectations and reality.

    Originally Posted by PLAW View Post
    Makes no sense that bama and ahhhburn rake in that type of cash in a poor, small state. Bama on par with Texass is just unfathonable.

    Somebody is playing with the numbers.

    SEC SEC SEC
    Well, also keep this in mind, from the article that was linked:

    Another word of caution: Universities sometimes count money differently so the EADA numbers aren't necessarily a precise comparison.

    Basically, there's no way of knowing if we're looking at true "apples-to-apples" comparisons here.

  29. #29
    Originally Posted by keefsmangledfingers View Post
    The real question is where is A&M?
    A&M took the hit financially this year for leaving the Big 12 and thus had all that money held back. Next year we get our full share of SEC money both in TV and bowl revenue as well as the significant increase we have experienced in merchandising. In 5 years though A&M will almost certainly have double current revenues with the renegotiated SEC TV deal, the SEC Network money, new bowl structure that favors the SEC getting bigger payouts, and the new Kyle which is set up to be a money printing machine with massive amounts of luxury seating and increased capacity.

    Auburn and Bama make a ton of cash because of SEC money combined with large, sold out stadiums and merchandising sales. Bama is a small state but all they care about is college football there and both schools (esp Bama) have a national following. Auburn will take a hit though next year and going forward if they don't fix the dumpster fire.

  30. #30
    Originally Posted by drspencer View Post
    Wow USC is much further down the list than I would have expected.
    USC is a private school so it is impossible to know their real numbers.

  31. #31
    Originally Posted by oudavid1 View Post
    Profit numbers > revenue numbers.

    We learn very little.
    Not necessarily. It depends on how you manage your expenses.

  32. #32
    TheLadiesMike's Avatar
    Posts
    4,751
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Sooner Nation

    Originally Posted by aggressor View Post
    A&M took the hit financially this year for leaving the Big 12 and thus had all that money held back. Next year we get our full share of SEC money both in TV and bowl revenue as well as the significant increase we have experienced in merchandising. In 5 years though A&M will almost certainly have double current revenues with the renegotiated SEC TV deal, the SEC Network money, new bowl structure that favors the SEC getting bigger payouts, and the new Kyle which is set up to be a money printing machine with massive amounts of luxury seating and increased capacity.

    Auburn and Bama make a ton of cash because of SEC money combined with large, sold out stadiums and merchandising sales. Bama is a small state but all they care about is college football there and both schools (esp Bama) have a national following. Auburn will take a hit though next year and going forward if they don't fix the dumpster fire.
    What conference is A&M in? I don't think you mentioned it. Aggie is such a perfect fit for that mindset.

  33. #33
    SoonerBounce Guest
    SoonerBounce's Avatar
    Posts
    n/a
    Originally Posted by ResidentEvil View Post
    Not necessarily. It depends on how you manage your expenses.
    ummm

  34. #34
    oSuJeff97's Avatar
    Posts
    1,377
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    The gray place between expectations and reality.

    Originally Posted by ResidentEvil View Post
    Not necessarily. It depends on how you manage your expenses.
    Huh?

    The profit number would directly tie to how you manage your expenses.

  35. #35
    OU48A's Avatar
    Posts
    13,179
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Norman

    Originally Posted by oSuJeff97 View Post
    OK, but what do facilities that are already in the ground have to do with athletic department revenune in one particular year?

    Also, are donations for capital projects included in these numbers? I kind of doubt it.

    Otherwise, OSU would have been far and away #1 in the nation in whatever year Pickens made his big donation. I believe these numbers are just income from ticket sales, licencing, media deals, suites, etc. The also probably include donations tied specifically to donar seating at football and basketball.



    Yeah. Keep beating that dead horse. The IPF will be up and running in a few months.



    You're the one who seems to lack perspective. The facilities are already in the ground. The real question is not does OU pull in more revenue -- the question should be -- is the marginal difference in revenue enough to make a difference in the long run?

    And let's not forget that we are talking about REVENUE numbers here. Unless you can quote me exact numbers for the expesnses of both the OSU and OU athletic departments, you have no idea if that $20MM or so per year makes any difference. What if the OU athletic department has $10-15MM higher expenses than the OSU athletic department? Then that $20MM difference doesn't make all that much difference.

    And finally, your little math problem that you put together just assumes the status quo. Again, if you would have looked at those numbers 10 years ago, I bet the difference would have been more like $50-70MM.



    Source/link on any of that?
    Facilities that are already in the ground that have long been paid for free up revenue that can be spent on other facilities elsewhere in a particular year.

    Concrete and steel when maintained well can last a very longtime. So this really isn’t a one year snap shot deal.

    We do know that increased revenue normally leads to increased spending that normally improves the odds of having competitive sports teams, which in turn leads to more revenue.


    OU’s fan base is much larger than OSU’s and as long as sports are played that’s not likely to ever change. It’s not too hard to see how OU will maintain it’s over all facilities lead over OSU.

    This gives OU an advantage in future revenue prospects. Also we are looking at OSU during their high water mark. OSU may not go back to the days where losing seasons were the normal, but in a league that includes OU and Texas along with others who are improving years like this season will be more normal than not for OSU.

    As far as OSU sport receiving state money, it was in a paper but it’s been too long ago for me to remember when and where I read it. But I have read on more than one occasion, that OSU athletics receives subsidies from the state. The fact is that the vast majority of Universities do receive state tax funding, so this is not anything unusual.
    But OU athletics do not receive state tax funding

  36. #36
    Originally Posted by oSuJeff97 View Post
    Huh?

    The profit number would directly tie to how you manage your expenses.
    Put it this way:
    School A: 50mm in revenue and 2mm in profit per year. All expenses go towards maintenance stuff (facility maintenance, travel budgets, etc)
    School B: 50mm in revenue and 1mm in profit per year. 46mm of the expenses are maintenance stuff (same kind as school A), but the other 3mm are capital improvements (upgrading the dorms, new weight rooms, new press box, new outdoor practice facility.

    Technically, school A has better profits. But I'd rather be school B, investing in my program.

    Maybe I should have said "it depends on what your expenses are going to" as opposed to "managing your expenses". The end result is that just looking at the profit a AD makes isn't the whole story...it depends on what you are spending money on.

  37. #37
    oSuJeff97's Avatar
    Posts
    1,377
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    The gray place between expectations and reality.

    Originally Posted by ResidentEvil View Post
    Put it this way:
    School A: 50mm in revenue and 2mm in profit per year. All expenses go towards maintenance stuff (facility maintenance, travel budgets, etc)
    School B: 50mm in revenue and 1mm in profit per year. 46mm of the expenses are maintenance stuff (same kind as school A), but the other 3mm are capital improvements (upgrading the dorms, new weight rooms, new press box, new outdoor practice facility.

    Technically, school A has better profits. But I'd rather be school B, investing in my program.

    Maybe I should have said "it depends on what your expenses are going to" as opposed to "managing your expenses". The end result is that just looking at the profit a AD makes isn't the whole story...it depends on what you are spending money on.
    I see what you're saying, but technically, money spent on capital improvements aren't "expenses" in the accounting sense that impacts P&L.

    That technicality aside, I agree that it matters what they spend money on.

  38. #38
    Originally Posted by palisooner View Post
    They averaged 87K this season.
    Yeah, in a stadium that seats 94,000. In a metroplex of 13 million people. And when they had 2 of their 6 home games featuring #4 Oregon and #1 ND.

  39. #39
    Looks like the Big 12 should have taken Louisville when they could have.

    Tuberville opted for a smaller money maker.

Similar Threads

  1. Tax revenue
    By oucub23 in forum ThunderDome
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 5th, 2013, 09:56 AM

Tags for this Thread