Ten AQ Programs Who Rely the Most on Student Activity Fees

Here’s a little bonus for the weekend if you liked the stories on which programs rely the most heavily on student activity fees (SEC, Big Ten and Big 12 breakdown here – ACC, Pac-10 and Big East breakdown here).

The top ten schools by dollar amount:

1 University of South Florida $13,026,289.00 33.24%
2 University of Virginia $12,160,103.00 14.86%
3 University of Connecticut $8,626,506.00 14.74%
4 Rutgers University $8,441,092.00 13.15%
5 Florida State University $6,919,449.00 9.30%
6 University of North Carolina $6,859,868.00 9.42%
7 Virginia Tech $6,533,756.00 10.27%
8 Auburn University $5,261,604.00 5.68%
9 Georgia Tech $4,643,368.00 8.39%
10 North Carolina State University $4,200,610.00 8.49%

The top ten schools by percent of total revenue:

1 University of South Florida $13,026,289.00 33.24%
2 University of Virginia $12,160,103.00 14.86%
3 University of Connecticut $8,626,506.00 14.74%
4 Rutgers University $8,441,092.00 13.15%
5 Mississippi State University $4,000,000.00 10.49%
6 Virginia Tech $6,533,756.00 10.27%
7 University of North Carolina $6,859,868.00 9.42%
8 Florida State University $6,919,449.00 9.30%
9 North Carolina State University $4,200,610.00 8.49%
10 Georgia Tech $4,643,368.00 8.39%

In both cases 9 of the 10 are ACC and Big East schools. SEC programs Auburn and Mississippi State fill out the final slot in each.

As I showed you yesterday, the ACC and Big East average the least fooball revenue out of the AQ conferences. Now you see they lead in reliance on student activity fees. Coincidence? I think not.

8 thoughts on “Ten AQ Programs Who Rely the Most on Student Activity Fees”

  1. In this article, USF doesn’t look very good. This raises the question- what is the breakdown of activity fees being used to support football per student? USF is one of the 10 biggest universities in the nation, so I’m wondering if, on an individual level, USF students actually are not supporting the program as much as students at some of the other schools on the list.

  2. I think it would make more sense to add all student fees together with direct support. It doesn’t make a difference to the AD where the additional income is coming from. Take UConn and Rutgers, for instance. You’d see a diffrerent picture if you added fees to support at those two schools.

    Another interesting study would be to look at the budgets growth of schools that jumped to D1 in football the last 10 to 15 years. I think you’d find massive growth in the athletic budget. U Buffalo went from $7 million total budget to plus $20 million. So, even though football profits grow, they do not grow at a sufficient rate to offset the massive increase in expenses. The majority of upgraders would be better off staying in lower divisions. They’re all gambling they can make bigger profits, and so far, they are losing that gamble.

    1. I have plans to do that in the future. Those initial pieces were based solely on student fees because that’s what students care about. Forget that other direct institutional support comes from their tuition – they see the athletic fee line item and start asking questions and/or complaining. That’s why I focused on student fees first.

Leave a Reply