MangoZip Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 Is anyone familiar with how the athletic department budget works? It seems that at most big schools the football department helps support other sports. At Akron the ticket sales obviously don’t help much but I’m curious about the big paydays that they receive against Ohio State, Tennessee, etc. Does the football team keep this money or does it all get absorbed into the entire athletic budget? Thanks, I’ll hang up and listen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP1 Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 3 hours ago, MangoZip said: Is anyone familiar with how the athletic department budget works? It seems that at most big schools the football department helps support other sports. At Akron the ticket sales obviously don’t help much but I’m curious about the big paydays that they receive against Ohio State, Tennessee, etc. Does the football team keep this money or does it all get absorbed into the entire athletic budget? Thanks, I’ll hang up and listen. The Department operates in the red. Payday games, donations, student fees and tax dollars keep it afloat..... Or adrift depending on how you want to look at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zipmeister Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 4 hours ago, MangoZip said: Is anyone familiar with how the athletic department budget works? At a few big schools the football department helps support other sports. At Akron the ticket sales obviously don’t help much but I’m curious about the big paydays that they receive against Ohio State, Tennessee, etc. Does the football team keep this money or does it all get absorbed into the entire athletic budget? Thanks, I’ll hang up and listen. Fixed it for you. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InTheZone Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 Even running in the red, a Division 1 football and basketball program is the cheapest form of national advertising a school can buy. But that's also why it's important to win. What you're advertising matters. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72 Roo Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 Revenues are placed in a general athletics fund that the Ad can decide how to parcel out. The buyout from UK and the big payday from OSU are earmarked to help several program. Football will not keep all of it, but hey will get the majority. A new scoreboard will be one of the benefits football will receive. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue & Gold Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 40 minutes ago, InTheZone said: Even running in the red, a Division 1 football and basketball program is the cheapest form of national advertising a school can buy. But that's also why it's important to win. What you're advertising matters. Exactly. The "Athletics" budget should be a subcategory (albeit, likely the majority) of the Advertising budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Let'sGoZips94 Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 28 minutes ago, 72 Roo said: Revenues are placed in a general athletics fund that the Ad can decide how to parcel out. The buyout from UK and the big payday from OSU are earmarked to help several program. Football will not keep all of it, but hey will get the majority. A new scoreboard will be one of the benefits football will receive. The scoreboard is the biggest eyesore and detractor from the Info. Replacing that will go a long way with GameDay experience for the 10 people that show up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZipCat Posted January 25 Report Share Posted January 25 (edited) On 1/23/2024 at 10:24 PM, MangoZip said: Is anyone familiar with how the athletic department budget works? It seems that at most big schools the football department helps support other sports. There are actually very few schools where the football program "makes money", when you look at the whole pie. There are now 133 D-1 football teams and only a handful (less than 10) are considered "profitable" by any private-sector measure. Most schools receive some sore of subsidy from the student body in the form of a "Student Facilities Fee" or "Student Activity Fee" or something, that is what pays for Rec Centers and Sports and that sort of thing. Usually the overwhelming % of that is athletics support, like we're talking 90%. I dug through the UA financials about a decade ago, and the student body was subsidizing the athletics programs at about $400 per semester per student, which means $3,200 over 4-years per student. I can only imagine that the "fee" has gone up since I looked at the numbers. Now Football will claim it also brings in the most money ... but it also costs the most money, so it's all a shell game. Edited January 25 by ZipCat 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP1 Posted January 25 Report Share Posted January 25 29 minutes ago, ZipCat said: There are actually very few schools where the football program "makes money", when you look at the whole pie. There are now 133 D-1 football teams and only a handful (less than 10) are considered "profitable" by any private-sector measure. Most schools receive some sore of subsidy from the student body in the form of a "Student Facilities Fee" or "Student Activity Fee" or something, that is what pays for Rec Centers and Sports and that sort of thing. Usually the overwhelming % of that is athletics support, like we're talking 90%. I dug through the UA financials about a decade ago, and the student body was subsidizing the athletics programs at about $400 per semester per student, which means $3,200 over 4-years per student. I can only imagine that the "fee" has gone up since I looked at the numbers. Now Football will claim it also brings in the most money ... but it also costs the most money, so it's all a shell game. Great post. If the object is to make money, college athletics around the United States is almost entirely failing. I'm not even sure there is enough money in conference consolidation and TV revenues to put much of a dent in the debt because the athletic directors will blow it as soon as they make it. If the goal is to benefit the athletes students alumni fans and general communities around the schools, it does much better. I have no idea how much, but better. I'm not sure why taxpayers aren't given tickets to public universities in exchange for them supporting these programs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpsjugglerdude Posted January 25 Report Share Posted January 25 In 2020, 18 out of 229 schools that were looked at had a profit in their athletic department. They ranged from Oregon at $270M profit (due to a Phil Knight gift), all the way down to JMU at -$46M. Where did Akron land? #205 with a loss of $22M. How did the rest of the MAC do? #106 NIU -$23.2M #130 BG -$14.4M #167 Portage State Community College -$19.3M #176 EMU -$21.1M #177 Ball -$21.4M #179 OU -$21.5M #181 UT -$21.6M #191 CMU -$23.6M #195 WMU -$24.2M #199 Akron -$24.7M #208 Miami -$26.1M #215 Buffalo -$29.5M https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/i-found-18-profitable-211-money-losing-ncaa-public-scott-hirko-ph-d-/ 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UA1996MAENG Posted January 25 Report Share Posted January 25 1 hour ago, tpsjugglerdude said: In 2020, 18 out of 229 schools that were looked at had a profit in their athletic department. They ranged from Oregon at $270M profit (due to a Phil Knight gift), all the way down to JMU at -$46M. Where did Akron land? #205 with a loss of $22M. How did the rest of the MAC do? #106 NIU -$23.2M #130 BG -$14.4M #167 Portage State Community College -$19.3M #176 EMU -$21.1M #177 Ball -$21.4M #179 OU -$21.5M #181 UT -$21.6M #191 CMU -$23.6M #195 WMU -$24.2M #199 Akron -$24.7M #208 Miami -$26.1M #215 Buffalo -$29.5M https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/i-found-18-profitable-211-money-losing-ncaa-public-scott-hirko-ph-d-/ There are no surprises in the list of profitable programs, but these data always lead me to wonder why and how the other Big 10 members like Wisconsin or Indiana, for example, cannot at least break even considering the large conference payout each gets. The entire MAC losing money is also no surprise, but it's disheartening because I cannot see this going on forever (enrollment at many MAC universities is dropping or stagnant). It's going to lead to more and more program cuts and this will weaken the conference overall from its already precarious position. Soccer is already gone as a MAC sport, etc. Surely more cuts are coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZipCat Posted January 25 Report Share Posted January 25 7 hours ago, GP1 said: I'm not sure why taxpayers aren't given tickets to public universities in exchange for them supporting these programs. Well, that's because the taxpayers don't generally support the sports of public universities. Taxpayer support for universities has declined over the decades, and most of that is considered an investment in training a workforce...or something something [insert political initiative here]. It's the students; with their tuition money, taking on debt to pay for these programs. It's basically a Ponzi scheme. The constant inflow of new students to fund the thing through their debt, and to reward the Alumni/Community. The 2000s will likely be remembered as a decadent era of fraud founded on debt, but that's a conversation for another day. Don't look behind the curtain. Just consume, consume, consume. I don't want to sound all doom-and-gloom, I do after all love my Zips. I do think there is (or at least used to be) tangible social/community benefits to these programs, but I think it's wained over the past 2-decades because of greed. The formation of the FOX and ESPN mega-conferances has basically accelerated the death of the value college-athletics had to communities IMHO. It's going to generate billions for other people, from the socialized cost of the student's debt on the bottom. Something has to give... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Let'sGoZips94 Posted January 25 Report Share Posted January 25 3 hours ago, ZipCat said: Well, that's because the taxpayers don't generally support the sports of public universities. Taxpayer support for universities has declined over the decades, and most of that is considered an investment in training a workforce...or something something [insert political initiative here]. It's the students; with their tuition money, taking on debt to pay for these programs. It's basically a Ponzi scheme. The constant inflow of new students to fund the thing through their debt, and to reward the Alumni/Community. The 2000s will likely be remembered as a decadent era of fraud founded on debt, but that's a conversation for another day. Don't look behind the curtain. Just consume, consume, consume. I don't want to sound all doom-and-gloom, I do after all love my Zips. I do think there is (or at least used to be) tangible social/community benefits to these programs, but I think it's wained over the past 2-decades because of greed. The formation of the FOX and ESPN mega-conferances has basically accelerated the death of the value college-athletics had to communities IMHO. It's going to generate billions for other people, from the socialized cost of the student's debt on the bottom. Something has to give... I had to double take. I thought this was a GP1 post. There are only 18 profitable programs in the entire country. The entire system is broken and the G5s are taking the worst of it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZipCat Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 9 hours ago, Let'sGoZips94 said: I had to double take. I thought this was a GP1 post. There are only 18 profitable programs in the entire country. The entire system is broken and the G5s are taking the worst of it. Apparently GP1 and I are kindred spirits 😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kreed5120 Posted January 29 Report Share Posted January 29 (edited) On 1/25/2024 at 2:04 PM, UA1996MAENG said: There are no surprises in the list of profitable programs, but these data always lead me to wonder why and how the other Big 10 members like Wisconsin or Indiana, for example, cannot at least break even considering the large conference payout each gets. The entire MAC losing money is also no surprise, but it's disheartening because I cannot see this going on forever (enrollment at many MAC universities is dropping or stagnant). It's going to lead to more and more program cuts and this will weaken the conference overall from its already precarious position. Soccer is already gone as a MAC sport, etc. Surely more cuts are coming. It's not that programs like Wisconsin or Iowa can't break even. It's that they choose to not breakeven as they would rather spend more in an attempt to keep up with the Jones's (aka UM/OSU). Edited January 29 by kreed5120 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue & Gold Posted January 29 Report Share Posted January 29 1 hour ago, kreed5120 said: It's not that programs like Wisconsin or Iowa can't break even. It's that they choose to not breakeven as they would rather spend more in an attempt to keep up with the Jones's (aka UM/OSU). Good point. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted August 31 Report Share Posted August 31 It's great for recruiting. My daughter wouldn't have chosen Akron if it wasn't for the lacrosse team and the awesome stadium the girls share with the football team. And if you look at the athletes gpas at akron they are very impressive. The football program is good for student life, recruiting, and while not top 20 in the nation exceptional student athletes that reflect well on the college. 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Kangaroo Posted September 5 Report Share Posted September 5 Every so often someone will post on the drain the football team is on the athletic department. Just doing some basic math on the 2024 season - 1.8 million for Ohio State 1.0 million for Rutgers 1.5 million for South Carolina $750,000 for the Kentucky buyout $670,000 ESPN contract Total revenue: $5,720,000 (plus whatever donations, ticket sales etc. are generated) While pulling in all that cash for UA, football lost their training table and have had severe limitations put on the recruiting budget. Grad assistants are another cut someone'd mentioned earlier. How are we supposed to compete? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MangoZip Posted September 5 Author Report Share Posted September 5 2 hours ago, Captain Kangaroo said: Every so often someone will post on the drain the football team is on the athletic department. Just doing some basic math on the 2024 season - 1.8 million for Ohio State 1.0 million for Rutgers 1.5 million for South Carolina $750,000 for the Kentucky buyout $670,000 ESPN contract Total revenue: $5,720,000 (plus whatever donations, ticket sales etc. are generated) While pulling in all that cash for UA, football lost their training table and have had severe limitations put on the recruiting budget. Grad assistants are another cut someone'd mentioned earlier. How are we supposed to compete? This looks like a political “they aren’t paying their fair share” argument when in reality no other teams (except maybe men’s basketball) are paying their fair share! They lost their training table? Please explain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP1 Posted September 5 Report Share Posted September 5 2 hours ago, Captain Kangaroo said: How are we supposed to compete? They can't. It's by design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MangoZip Posted September 5 Author Report Share Posted September 5 10 minutes ago, GP1 said: They can't. It's by design. Oh GP, we have this debate before. Your stance makes zero sense! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue & Gold Posted September 5 Report Share Posted September 5 https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/sports/college/zips/2024/09/05/akron-zips-football-non-confernce-paydays-total-more-than-3-million/75085851007/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZippyRulz Posted September 5 Report Share Posted September 5 (edited) 4 hours ago, Captain Kangaroo said: Every so often someone will post on the drain the football team is on the athletic department. Just doing some basic math on the 2024 season - 1.8 million for Ohio State 1.0 million for Rutgers 1.5 million for South Carolina $750,000 for the Kentucky buyout $670,000 ESPN contract Total revenue: $5,720,000 (plus whatever donations, ticket sales etc. are generated) While pulling in all that cash for UA, football lost their training table and have had severe limitations put on the recruiting budget. Grad assistants are another cut someone'd mentioned earlier. How are we supposed to compete? Hopefully a lot of that is going to NIL funding. It will be interesting to see how the NIL vs. coaching salaries balance will develop over time in CFB. Edited September 5 by ZippyRulz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MangoZip Posted September 5 Author Report Share Posted September 5 2 hours ago, ZippyRulz said: Hopefully a lot of that is going to NIL funding. It will be interesting to see how the NIL vs. coaching salaries balance will develop over time in CFB. Akron has zero NIL. Pretty much the entire MAC has no NIL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilltopper Posted September 6 Report Share Posted September 6 7 hours ago, Captain Kangaroo said: Every so often someone will post on the drain the football team is on the athletic department. Just doing some basic math on the 2024 season - 1.8 million for Ohio State 1.0 million for Rutgers 1.5 million for South Carolina $750,000 for the Kentucky buyout $670,000 ESPN contract Total revenue: $5,720,000 (plus whatever donations, ticket sales etc. are generated) While pulling in all that cash for UA, football lost their training table and have had severe limitations put on the recruiting budget. Grad assistants are another cut someone'd mentioned earlier. How are we supposed to compete? Everything you say is true except for one fact that you omitted. The $5 million a year in debt service for the stadium. That money is considered part of the Athletic Department budget. There is currently a $45 million balance still due on the original $60 million price rag for the stadium. It's going to take another 20 years to pay off that debt. No other MAC Athletic department has that kind of debt hanging over them. You can thank those previous AD's who got the thing built for this situation. They have all moved on to bigger and better paydays while the current administration has to deal with the consequences. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.