Ohio State’s Football Budget

To kickoff Ohio State Week on the BusinessofCollegeSports.com I want to start by looking at the line item football budget. Check back each day this week for more Ohio State numbers, including recruiting expenses and overall athletic department budget. 

Below you’ll see numbers for both the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. These numbers were obtained directly from the Ohio State University athletic department. Please note this 2011-2012 budget was prepared before the events of this past weekend, so you can expect some changes, especially with regards to coaches salaries. Also, decisions on raises for all personnel have not yet been made.

One thing to note as you take a look is that Ohio State has 7 home games in 2011-2012 compared to 8 in 2010-2011. Interesting to see how that impacts the overall budget both in terms of revenue and expense. Be sure to read after the chart to see how some of these numbers fit into the athletic budget as a whole.

  Budget   Budget
  2010-2011   2011-2012
REVENUE      
Visitor Guarantees -7,148,050   -5,923,040
Concessions 1,960,000   1,715,000
Season Tix – Fac/Staff 6,868,000   6,009,500
Season Tix – Students 5,002,500   4,785,000
Public Ticket Sales 30,310,760   25,605,040
Postage & Handling 0   0
Television 10,700,000   11,415,300
Broadcasting 1,296,050   1,246,050
Guarantees 2,850,000   3,909,000
Miscellaneous 0   0
       
Revenue Total 51,839,260   48,761,850
EXPENSES       
A & P 3,447,937   3,707,931
CCS 97,455   109,537
Specials 331,800   322,000
Grad Students 29,743   45,844
Additional Pay 0   0
Student Wages 32,000   32,000
Benefits 1,208,582   1,383,456
Benefits Fee Waivers 48,000   72,000
Clinical Supplies 112,625   47,500
General Supplies 25,000   25,000
Video Supplies 18,000   21,150
Clothing & Equipment 173,400   173,400
Postage 35,000   35,000
Communications 69,800   69,800
Equipment Rep & Maint 53,000   59,300
Building & Grounds Rep & Mnt 25,000   25,000
Equipment Rental 6,000   8,945
Space Rental 4,500   6,300
Copy Services 27,500   27,500
Photo Services 25,000   25,000
Printing 51,000   51,000
Recruiting 484,000   438,500
Misc Travel 129,500   129,500
Team Travel 750,310   890,735
Purchased Services 85,250   85,250
Game Day Expenses 1,120,000   925,000
Dues & Memberships 1,800   1,800
Subscriptions 2,200   2,200
Meals 470,290   462,421
Banquet 29,000   30,875
Lodging 204,328   224,084
Shipping & freight 0   0
Officials 118,650   104,450
Grant In Aid 3,307,000   3,413,000
Capital Equipment 51,860   84,658
       
Expense Total 12,575,530   13,040,136
       
Net Profit 39,263,730   35,721,714

A few of the categories probably need clarification. A&P is Administration and Professional staff salaries. This category includes the salaries of all coaches. CCS is pay for Civil Service Personnel, who are support staff belonging to a union. Specials can cover a number of items from special event staff to incentives that may be paid to coaches as a part of their contract.

I think it’s interesting to see all the expenses associated with running a top-notch football program like Ohio State’s. I won’t comment on many of the categories, but I wanted to let you see them all. As I noted earlier, Ohio State has one less home game for the 2011 season. Amazing what a difference one game can make. The loss of that one home game costs Ohio State roughly $3 million!

As you can see, the two biggest expenses are salaries and grants-in-aid (payments back to the university for scholarships). Administrative and Professional salaries for football account for 18% of all salaries in that category in the athletic department, and grants-in-aid for football are nearly 22% of all aid granted by the athletic department. Football has the greatest number of athletes participating, so this should be no surprise. 

I often hear fans lament the great amount of money spent on football compared to other sports. However, football is the one sport where you can likely spend more to make more. Revenue from football accounts for 73% of all revenue generated by individual sports at Ohio State, and football is one of only two sports who turn a net profit. Later this week I’ll show you how the profit generated by football supports the athletic department as a whole, proving the investment in football is a wise one. Until then, you can read my previous piece on how “other sports” are funded.

The Ohio State University Week!

I was already planning on posting some interesting financial data on Ohio State tomorrow and was pondering doing a post each day this week because I have so much data. With today’s news of Tressel resigning I think it’s perfect timing! So, this week will be all Ohio State on BusinessofCollegeSports.com with a new post each day.

Until then, enjoy your Memorial Day and thank you to all those who have served our country!

Cost of Attendance and USC’s Penalty

USC Football - Flickr by @jshyun

There are two things I wanted to touch on today, neither of which merited an entire post. Since they’re somewhat related in that USC may have ended up in their current predicament because players aren’t compensated fairly and thus lured by outside offers of assistance, I’m going to combine them into one post.

Increasing Scholarships to Include Cost of Attendance

College football commentary is abuzz this week with the news that Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delaney and SEC Commissioner Mike Slive have both made public that they are considering cost of attendance scholarships. Athletic scholarships currently cover room, board, books and tuition. Many claim there is a gap of several thousand dollars where players struggle to be able to do things like take their girlfriend to dinner. Non-athlete students can cover these costs with a part-time job, while athletes already have a part-time job with their athletic involvement. Proponents of paying players, or at least increasing scholarships levels to include cost of attendance, say it’s this gap that allows agents and other outside influences to lure players into breaking the rules.

The first issue I see in allowing athletic scholarships to include the cost of attendance is that it may widen the gap between the have and have nots. If University of Georgia can afford to offer these scholarships but Mississippi State cannot, will this

into a player’s decision?

Also, if you provide these scholarships to some athletes, I think you have to offer them to all athletes. As we’ve discussed here many times before (most recently in this post: Problems with Paying College Athletes), only 14 programs are turning a profit without institutional support. That means going to more costly scholarships is likely to produce an increase in institutional support and even more pressure put on sports who do not generate enough revenue to support themselves.

Cost of attendance is included in some academic scholarships, so on that basis I have trouble saying athletic programs shouldn’t consider it. However, I simply don’t see how they can afford it without creating other problems. I also don’t think it will suddenly resolve the issue of agents and other outsiders luring players with money and benefits. For guys who are willing to cross that line, a few thousand dollars in extra scholarship money is not going to stop them.

USC’s Penalty

Here’s another fairness argument invading every piece of college sports commentary I read. You know how I feel about the fairness discussion. Yesterday all the chatter was about whether or not USC’s penalty is fair.

Many think it’s not fair to punish current players who weren’t around when the violations occurred. I’ve only seen one other solution, however, which is fining USC. I’ve seen several commentators propose that USC should be stripped of all gate receipts, television revenue and BCS revenue from the 2004 season.

Who will this really punish though? It’s unlikely that USC is operating their athletic department in the black without any institutional support. Therefore, those millions of dollars would be taken from the University’s general coffers. Does the rest of the student body deserve this? Would the University pass on this loss to the athletic department by limiting their budget? Perhaps, although I’m not convinced. And if they did pass it on, who would suffer? Sports other than football, I’m sure. Athletes who certainly shouldn’t be punished for misdeeds on the football team.

This is simply an unfortunate situation where the penalty cannot be directly aimed at those who were in the wrong. Instead, it’s aimed at the football program as a whole. It’s severe and certainly meant to be a deterrent. It’s a message to the rest of college football that the NCAA can and will inflict damage to programs thumbing their nose at, or at the very least choosing to remain blissfully ignorant of, NCAA regulations. It sets a scary precedent for programs like UNC and Ohio State who are currently under investigation.

Do you have a better idea for a penalty? Would love to hear them!

Around the Web

I have returned from Ireland! However, since I just returned last evening and am still working my way through the mound of work on my desk at my day job, today’s post is going to be an Around the Web post.

If you read nothing else today, read this. Tony Barnhart over at CBS Sports hit the nail on the head with this piece. Do you want to know what college football will look like in a few years? I think Tony’s hypothetical is a real possibility. In fact, it’s exactly what I think will happen.

Other interesting stories:

  • The band geeks finally get their due recognition in a recent study by the University of Mississippi. A whopping 97% of respondents said the band was “extremely” or “somewhat” important to the game day experience. As someone who tailgates right in front of the UF band’s practice area, I cannot imagine game day without them. Other categories covered in the survey included favorite pre-game experience, how far in advance of a game fans arrive and much more!
  • USC “vehemently” disagrees with NCAA’s denial of its appeal. I think USC is the only one shocked by the decision. Perhaps if the NCAA enforced its regulations in this manner a little more often we wouldn’t see as many violations.
  • Speaking of programs who need to get some control over their players, Heather Dinnich of ESPN’s ACC blog has a great piece on Butch Davis and UNC.

Will NCAA Show Consistency When Ruling on Ohio State’s Infractions?

If you read this site regularly or follow me on Twitter, you know that I am in Ireland from May 17-25th. While I’m away, I’m sharing with you the work of Patrick Rishe, my collegue at SportsMoney on Forbes.com.

By: Patrick Rishe

On June 10th, 2010, Yahoo Sports reported that the NCAA’s probe into USC’s athletics program resulted in:

• A postseason ban in football following the 2010 and 2011 seasons;

• A loss of 30 total football scholarships over the 2011, 2012 and 2013 seasons;

• 4 years probation;

• A vacation of all football victories starting in December 2004 and running through the 2005 season, including the national championship win over Oklahoma in January 2005.

Many of these penalties were levied after the NCAA’s lengthy review of wrongdoing within the USC football program.  Specifically, wrongdoing by Reggie Bush and his family which included multiple cash payments from would-be sports marketing agents, a house for Bush’s parents, an automobile outfitted with rims and a stereo system, airfare, hotel stays, limousine service, meals, auto repairs, clothing, furniture, and appliances.

Now there is no question that these penalties were quite severe.  Partly because of the nature and the volume of infractions at hand (there were other infractions with USC’s men’s basketball and women’s tennis programs).  And partly because, in my opinion, the NCAA had additional venom because they felt the USC athletics department and the Bush family were less than accommodating during the investigation.

Prior to the penalties being levied during the investigation, I can recall friends of mine who did and still work within the NCAA using words like ‘arrogant’ and ‘elitist’ to describe former USC athletics director Mike Garrett.  An attitude that, at the time, permeated throughout the program.

An antagonistic, defiant attitude that showed little contrition or remorse over its actions.  And thus, garnered little sympathy or leniency when the NCAA handed down its punishment.

Conversely, at least prior to December 2010, I don’t think the average college football fan would use those same words and sentiments to describe Ohio State athletics.  I had the impression that NCAA Headquarters looked upon the Buckeye program rather favorably.

So that’s why the NCAA’s ruling and assessment of penalties for Ohio State on August 12th is so compelling.

Will they punish the Buckeyes more or less than they punished the Trojans?

Will that decision be based solely on a comparison of the infractions at hand, or will the NCAA show leniency towards Ohio State because (a) they proactively imposed self-penalties once the truth was discovered and (b) are better liked by NCAA administrators because the program is perceived more positively than USC’s program?

To review the Buckeyes’ mess:

- Coach Jim Tressel was notified in April 2010 via emails from a Buckeyes fan and former player that Ohio State players were trading signed jerseys and other memorabilia to a Columbus tattoo parlor owner for cash and reduced-price tattoos;

- Even though his contract and NCAA rules required him to notify athletic director Gene Smith, Ohio State President E. Gordon Gee or the university’s compliance department about this information, Coach Tressel did not;

- It was not until more than 9 months passed—and five players including quarterback Terrelle Pryor had been suspended for the first five games of the 2011 season—that Ohio State officials discovered the emails and confronted Coach Tressel. He finally admitted he knew of the players getting improper benefits;

- Coach Tressel was originally suspended for 2 games—later extended to the first 5 games this fall to match the punishment of the five players—and was fined $250,000, required to make a public apology, receive a public reprimand, and attend an NCAA compliance seminar which he will do June 6-10 in Tampa.

And just when you thought you heard the last of it, the Columbus Dispatch reported Saturday that the university is officially investigating used-car sales to at least eight football players and 11 players’ relatives from two Columbus, Ohio dealerships.

Now Ohio State, along with the rest of us, must sit back and await whether the NCAA chooses to impose further sanctions.  The ruling is set for August 12th.

So this begs the question: “What is equitable punishment for Ohio State when comparing their infractions to the infractions and penalties imposed upon USC?”

As it relates to athlete-specific violations, it seems that Reggie Bush’s infractions were more severe than Ohio State players selling their own memorabilia and getting discounted tattoos…though if fire follows the smoke from the afore-mentioned car sales report, that “severity gap” closes.  Especially if players and their relatives were getting discounted cars in exchange for Buckeye football tickets.

And I fear that ‘that’ fire might combust before summer’s end.

As it relates to the behavior of the coaches involved, at least former Trojans and current Seattle Seahawks coach Pete Carroll had the good sense to get out of dodge before the mess landed on his front lawn.  Maybe he knew what Reggie Bush was up to, but it’s plausible that he didn’t.  Whether you think him corrupt, naive, goofy, aloof, or all of the above, there is no evidence to date that he knowingly lied to his superiors or NCAA investigators regarding Reggie Bush.

Conversely, Coach Tressel knowingly LIED.  He lied to his superiors at the university.  And his calculated deception allowed ineligible student-athletes to compete for Ohio State during the 2010 season.

Student-athletes have the luxury of falling back on the ”young and dumb” argument in the court of public opinion.  Coach Tressel does not have that luxury, especially since he and former players have had previous brushes with the NCAA both at Ohio State and his previous employer Youngstown State.

Just ask Tennessee and Bruce Pearl how the NCAA likes it when you lie to them.  Pearl lost his job because Tennessee wanted to save face with the NCAA, and we’ll find out in a few weeks when they go in front of the infractions committee whether this firing curried any favor.

So if a coach’s lies are seen as equally afoul of the rules as a player’s inappropriate receipt of money and gifts, then we should expect that Ohio State will receive further penalties come August.

Vacated wins?  Check.

Lost scholarships?  Check.

Bowl ban?  Check.

And, at the very least, a one-year suspension of Coach Tressel.  It still would not surprise me if Coach Tressel resigned in light of the continued heat he will face in the upcoming months.

Yet, there’s a small part of me that thinks the NCAA may not be as harsh with Ohio State as they were with USC.

I go back to the animosity that NCAA officials had with the USC program.  The NCAA went after USC the same way the federal government went after Barry Bonds.  They were unrelenting in their pursuit of justice, and they ultimately ‘got their man’.

At least Ohio State has shown a level of contrition which USC never did.

At least Ohio State was willing to impose penalties upon themselves which USC never did.

And because the athletic department has been proactive once the truth was revealed, this might be just enough to lessen the severity of the oncoming and added sanctions.

A fortune teller I’m not, but I can tell you that Coach Tressel and Ohio State football are about to lose a fortune’s worth of credibility and respect.

Only time will tell how severe the upcoming sanctions will be, and whether said sanctions will jeopardize the Buckeyes’ stranglehold on Big Ten football dominance.

But the NCAA is on trial as well, and there will be many interested observers ready to critique if the Buckeye sanctions are inequitably different from USC’s.

******************************************************************

Follow Patrick on Twitter @SportsDocRock or visit www.patrickrishe.net

Big East Basketball Tournament Most Expensive

If you read this site regularly or follow me on Twitter, you know that I am in Ireland from May 17-25th. While I’m away, I’m sharing with you the work of Patrick Rishe, my collegue at SportsMoney on Forbes.com. This is the fifth of a series of pieces Patrick did for SportsMoney on college basketball finance. You can find all of my pieces on football finance here.

By: Patrick Rishe

If we can surmise anything from secondary ticket price data in sports, it’s the ebb and flow of real-time demand and value that consumers place on various sporting events.

That said, it seems that fans of the Big East Men’s Basketball tournament at Madison Square Garden in New York City place a greater premium and significance on that tourney than fans of all other BCS post-season basketball tourneys.

My source from StubHub furnished the following average secondary ticket price data for each round of each of the 6 BCS conferences in an effort to gauge the relative significance and importance that fans assign to each tournament respectively.

The results:

Round Big East Big 12 ACC Pac 10 Big Ten SEC
Early Rounds $70 $62 $48 $69 $54 $29
Quarters $279 $132 $127 $113 $110 $74
Semis $368 $268 $287 $153 $171 $123
Finals $217 $214 $201 $143 $106 $130
             
AGGREGATE PRICE $934 $676 $663 $478 $441 $356

Focusing on “aggregate prices” (i.e. the sum of the 4 rounds for each tourney), the Big East tourney is the most expensive BY FAR.  Its average “aggregate price” for all sessions on the secondary market is $934, over $250 more expensive than the “aggregate price” for either the Big 12 or ACC tourneys.

The Big East tournament is likely the most expensive because of location.  Being in New York drives the value of those tickets.

It’s also not surprising to see these 3 conferences lead the way in “secondary market ticket prices” because they are the most popular conference tournaments, according to 2010 NCAA attendance data. Specifically, in 2010 these 3 conferences had the highest attendance per session (ACC – 23,371; Big East – 19,375; Big 12 – 18,900).

So in the context of valuing a sports entity, the Big East tournament is the most prized, valued, and popular of the BCS men’s basketball tournaments.  And the fact that the games are played amidst the glitz and glamour of New York City in the historic Madison Square Garden are reasons that drive these facts.

*******************************************************************************************************

Follow Patrick @ SportsDocRock or visit www.patrickrishe.net

ACC Basketball Financials Heavily Skewed by UNC and Duke

If you read this site regularly or follow me on Twitter, you know that I am in Ireland from May 17-25th. While I’m away, I’m sharing with you the work of Patrick Rishe, my collegue at SportsMoney on Forbes.com. This is the fourth of a series of pieces Patrick did for SportsMoney on college basketball finance. You can find all of my pieces on football finance here.

By: Patrick Rishe

Part I of our coverage of the economics of college basketball compared the revenues of the top 14 rated Division I conferences as listed by the RPI ratings. And Part II provided an overview of the top revenue generating basketball programs in the country.

Part III of our assessment of college basketball financials took an in depth look at the college basketball financials of the Big East Conference. Part IV of our assessment of college basketball financials took an in depth look at the college basketball financials of the Big Ten Conference.  Based on data from the 2009-10 academic year, we saw that (a) the average Big Ten school earned $12.5 M in revenue with Wisconsin topping the list at $17.6 M, (b) men’s basketball revenues grew roughly 214% from 2003 to 2009 largely due to the advent of The Big Ten Network, and (c) the conference generated approximately $138 M in revenues which is 2ndbest among BCS conferences behind the Big East.

Part V of our look at college basketball financials herein focuses on the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC).

Recall from our earlier pieces that the financial data for these programs comes from the U.S. Department of Education and is for the 2009-10 academic year.  For reasons described in the afore-linked pieces, this data is highly robust and credible as schools must report their financials to the U.S. Department of Education.

ACC REVENUES AND PROFITS SKEWED WILDLY BY DUKE AND UNC

ACC schools average $11.6 M from men’s basketball, but the median is more than $2 M below the mean at $9.2 M.

This is because Duke and North Carolina greatly skew the mean.  Both ranked among the top 5 revenue-generating programs for the reporting year as they respectively earned 130% and 77% more revenue than the league average.

No other ACC team generated men’s basketball revenues above the league average, and 4 schools (Boston College, Miami, Clemson, and Florida State) earned at least 30% below the mean.

TEAM MBB REV RATIO
Duke $26,667,056 2.30
North Carolina $20,551,168 1.77
Maryland $10,739,282 0.92
North Carolina State $10,354,157 0.89
Virginia $9,788,223 0.84
Virginia Tech $9,252,293 0.80
Georgia Tech $9,143,914 0.79
Wake Forest $9,064,780 0.78
Boston College $8,026,369 0.69
Miami $7,081,121 0.61
Clemson $7,054,691 0.61
Florida St $5,756,857 0.50
     
MEAN $11,611,187  
MEDIAN $9,252,293  

Not surprisingly, Duke and North Carolina are also far above their conference peers in terms of profits.

Duke earned $14.3 M in men’s basketball profits for the reporting year, North Carolina earned $13.9 M, and then the next closest school was NC State at $7.2 M.  The league average was roughly $5.3 M.

TEAM MBB REV MBB EXP MBB PROFIT
Duke $26,667,056 $12,286,475 $14,380,581
North Carolina $20,551,168 $6,647,459 $13,903,709
North Carolina State $10,354,157 $3,104,152 $7,250,005
Maryland $10,739,282 $5,160,381 $5,578,901
Georgia Tech $9,143,914 $3,873,987 $5,269,927
Wake Forest $9,064,780 $4,196,104 $4,868,676
Virginia Tech $9,252,293 $4,790,553 $4,461,740
Clemson $7,054,691 $4,217,341 $2,837,350
Miami $7,081,121 $4,651,481 $2,429,640
Virginia $9,788,223 $7,390,325 $2,397,898
Florida St $5,756,857 $5,126,393 $630,464
Boston College $8,026,369 $8,026,369 $0
       
MEAN $11,123,326 $5,789,252 $5,334,074
MEDIAN $9,198,104 $4,958,473 $4,665,208

“BASKETBALL RELIANCE” OFF THE CHARTS FOR DUKE

Due to both the strength of their basketball program and the relative weakness of their football program, Duke generates nearly 39% of their total revenue from men’s basketball.  This is one of the largest “basketball reliance” statistics among Division I BCS schools.

      MBB Rev as
Team MBB Rev Tot Rev % of Tot Rev
Duke $26,667,056 $68,536,289 38.9%
North Carolina $20,551,168 $67,613,805 30.4%
Wake Forest $9,064,780 $42,253,156 21.5%
Maryland $10,739,282 $51,641,771 20.8%
North Carolina State $10,354,157 $50,335,991 20.6%
Georgia Tech $9,143,914 $46,983,216 19.5%
Virginia Tech $9,252,293 $58,115,929 15.9%
Miami $7,081,121 $56,084,064 12.6%
Boston College $8,026,369 $64,502,395 12.4%
Clemson $7,054,691 $57,562,999 12.3%
Virginia $9,788,223 $81,841,632 12.0%
Florida St $5,756,857 $75,209,179 7.7%
       
MEAN $11,123,326 $60,056,702 18.7%
MEDIAN $9,198,104 $57,839,464 17.7%

Alternatively, schools with a greater history in football relative to basketball (e.g. Florida St, Virginia, Clemson, Boston College, and Miami) have much smaller “basketball shares”.  Florida State, with the most storied football history, only generated 7.7% of their revenues from men’s basketball.

To this point:

TEAM MBB REV FB REV FB REV / MBB REV
Clemson $7,054,691 $30,994,503 4.39
Miami $7,081,121 $24,631,029 3.48
Virginia Tech $9,252,293 $31,155,870 3.37
Florida St $5,756,857 $18,958,861 3.29
Georgia Tech $9,143,914 $24,870,064 2.72
Boston College $8,026,369 $19,184,902 2.39
North Carolina State $10,354,157 $22,018,738 2.13
Virginia $9,788,223 $19,004,653 1.94
Wake Forest $9,064,780 $10,227,922 1.13
Maryland $10,739,282 $11,540,368 1.07
North Carolina $20,551,168 $22,077,550 1.07
Duke $26,667,056 $16,109,324 0.60
       
MEAN $11,123,326 $20,897,815 2.45
MEDIAN $9,198,104 $20,601,820 2.39

This shows that (a) the average football revenue for ACC schools was $20.9 M per school for the reporting year, and (b) ACC schools averaged $245 in football revenue for every $100 in men’s basketball revenue.

Other interesting points on this topic:

-        4 ACC schools (Clemson, Miami, Virginia Tech, Florida State) generate at least 3 times as much revenue from football than men’s basketball;

-        Duke actually generated more revenue from men’s basketball than football, perhaps one of the only schools among BCS Division I programs for which this is true.

CONFERENCE ANALYSIS

ACC 2009 2003 Ratio
MBB REV $133,479,911 $98,850,529 1.35
WBB REV $13,783,701 $6,047,077 2.28
ALL REV: MEN+WOMEN SPORTS $420,234,244 $323,565,900 1.30
       
MBB Rev as % of Total 31.8% 23.5% 1.35
WBB Rev as % of Total 3.3% 1.4% 2.28
Basketball as % of Total 35.0% 32.4% 1.08

Comparing aggregate conference revenue data from 2003 to 2009 and controlling for inflation by measuring both years in constant 2009 dollars, we can surmise that:

- Men’s basketball revenues have grown roughly 35% during that span while women’s basketball revenues have increased by 128%;

- Men’s basketball comprised nearly 32% of the conference’s revenue from men’s and women’s sports in 2009, the largest percentage of any of the 3 conferences analyzed thus far;

- Jointly men’s and women’s basketball comprised 35% of aggregate revenue from men’s and women’s sports in 2009, only up 8% from 2003 but rivaling the Big East for the highest “share”.

That basketball is such a high percentage of total revenues in the ACC speaks to (a) the immense popularity and tradition of college basketball on Tobacco Road and (b) the relatively weaker football revenues generated collectively among ACC schools.

But make no mistake…these financials are wildly skewed by the 2 programs at the top of the table.  Duke and UNC.

Many thanks to Saint Louis University Sports Business students Bryan Beasley, Jacob Fish, Brett Goldman, Jeff Tiedman, Jordan Erk, and Andrew Moses for their contributions to this article.

***********************************************************************************************************************************************

Follow Patrick on Twitter @ SportsDocRock or visit www.patrickrishe.net

Who’s Making Money on Basketball in the Big Ten?

Image from Flickr via @yowzer

 If you read this site regularly or follow me on Twitter, you know that I am in Ireland from May 17-25th. While I’m away, I’m sharing with you the work of Patrick Rishe, my collegue at SportsMoney on Forbes.com. This is the fourth of a series of pieces Patrick did for SportsMoney on college basketball finance. You can find all of my pieces on football finance here.

By: Patrick Rishe

Part I of our coverage of the economics of college basketball compared the revenues of the top 14 rated Division I conferences as listed by the RPI ratings. And Part II provided an overview of the top revenue generating basketball programs in the country.

Part 3 of our assessment of college basketball financials took an in depth look at the college basketball financials of the Big East Conference.  We saw that its 16-team conference generated the most conference revenue from men’s basketball among any conference in the country, topping $154 M in revenue for the 2009-10 season.

However, the Big Ten Conference actually generates more revenue from men’s basketball per school than the Big East, showcasing that there can be some drawbacks from having a mega-conference.  Namely, you have more mouths to feed and thus more sharing must take place.

Part IV of our look at college basketball financials focuses herein on the Big Ten.

According to NCAA financial data, over the last 6 years the Big Ten has earned $82.9 M in March Madness money based on their conference’s collective postseason performance.  This amounts to $13.5 M per year, 4th best among all other Division I basketball conferences behind the Big East, Big 12, and ACC.

So with that as a framework, let’s further review the financials of individual schools within the Big Ten.  And recall from our earlier pieces that the financial data for these programs comes from the U.S. Department of Education and is for the 2009-10 academic year.  For reasons described in the afore-linked pieces, this data is highly robust and credible as schools must report their financials to the U.S. Department of Education.

WHICH BIG TEN TEAMS EARN THE MOST REVENUE?

Big Ten schools average $12.5 M from men’s basketball with a median of $13.7 M.

Wisconsin earned the most revenue from men’s basketball among Big Ten schools, with Indiana, Ohio St, and Michigan St not too far behind.  These schools earned between 29-41% more revenue than the league average.

TEAM MBB REV RATIO
Wisconsin $17,666,311 1.41
Indiana $16,570,158 1.32
Ohio St. $16,190,723 1.29
Michigan St. $16,138,167 1.29
Illinois $14,413,222 1.15
Minnesota $13,733,316 1.09
Northwestern $10,048,801 0.80
Iowa $8,796,540 0.70
Penn St. $8,384,315 0.67
Michigan $8,321,413 0.66
Purdue $7,791,967 0.62
     
MEAN $12,550,448  
MEDIAN $13,733,316  

Four schools in the conference (Iowa, Penn St, Michigan, and Purdue) earned significantly below $10 M in men’s basketball revenues for the reporting year, ranging between $7.8-8.8 M.

OHIO STATE AND WISCONSIN THE MOST PROFITABLE

When you factor in expenses, Ohio St and Wisconsin are the only 2 schools that earned profits in excess of $10 M.  Purdue again ranked last in the conference, earning only $2.6 M in men’s basketball profits.

For the conference, the average men’s basketball profits reported was $6.9 M and the median profits was $8.5 M.

TEAM MBB REV MBB EXP MBB PROFIT
Ohio St. $16,190,723 $4,554,908 $11,635,815
Wisconsin $17,666,311 $7,539,418 $10,126,893
Illinois $14,413,222 $4,980,589 $9,432,633
Indiana $16,570,158 $7,653,945 $8,916,213
Minnesota $13,733,316 $5,692,149 $8,041,167
Michigan St. $16,138,167 $8,250,450 $7,887,717
Northwestern $10,048,801 $4,158,854 $5,889,947
Penn St. $8,384,315 $4,147,124 $4,237,191
Iowa $8,796,540 $5,243,813 $3,552,727
Michigan $8,321,413 $4,913,440 $3,407,973
Purdue $7,791,967 $5,171,495 $2,620,472
       
MEAN $12,550,448 $5,664,199 $6,886,250
MEDIAN $13,733,316 $5,171,495 $8,561,821

INDIANA AND ILLINOIS HAVE THE LARGEST “BASKETBALL SHARES”

With respect to what I’ve called the “basketball reliance” metric, the table below shows that Illinois and Indiana earned 26.9% and 24.1% of their “men’s sports revenue” from basketball.  The only other schools with “basketball revenue shares” greater than 20% were Northwestern and Michigan State.

      MBB REV AS
TEAM MBB REV TOT REV % OF TOT REV
Illinois $14,413,222 $53,502,485 26.90%
Indiana $16,570,158 $68,769,582 24.10%
Northwestern $10,048,801 $48,921,823 20.50%
Michigan St. $16,138,167 $80,064,147 20.20%
Wisconsin $17,666,311 $93,901,820 18.80%
Minnesota $13,733,316 $73,599,999 18.70%
Ohio St. $16,190,723 $89,375,805 18.10%
Purdue $7,791,967 $61,508,748 12.70%
Iowa $8,796,540 $88,510,052 9.90%
Penn St. $8,384,315 $106,614,724 7.90%
Michigan $8,321,413 $106,666,191 7.80%
       
MEAN $12,550,448 $79,221,398 16.90%
MEDIAN $13,733,316 $80,064,147 18.70%

In short, the data shows that the typical Big Ten school earned roughly 17% of its “men’s sports revenue” from men’s basketball.

Schools like Michigan, Penn St, and Iowa received less than 10% of their overall men’s revenues from  basketball, largely because of the relative disparity between their revenue-generating ability in football relative to their basketball programs.

To this point:

TEAM MBB REV FB REV FB REV / MBB REV
Penn St. $8,384,315 $70,208,584 8.37
Michigan $8,321,413 $63,189,417 7.59
Iowa $8,796,540 $45,854,764 5.21
Ohio St. $16,190,723 $63,750,000 3.94
Michigan St. $16,138,167 $44,462,659 2.76
Minnesota $13,733,316 $32,322,688 2.35
Purdue $7,791,967 $18,118,898 2.33
Northwestern $10,048,801 $22,704,959 2.26
Wisconsin $17,666,311 $38,662,971 2.19
Illinois $14,413,222 $25,301,783 1.76
Indiana $16,570,158 $21,783,185 1.31
       
MEAN $12,550,448 $40,578,173 3.64
MEDIAN $13,733,316 $38,662,971 2.35

This shows that (a) the average football revenue for Big Ten schools was $40.6 M per school, and (b) Big Ten schools averaged $364 in football revenue for every $100 in men’s basketball revenue.

Penn St, Michigan, and Iowa were the only schools to earn at least 5 times more football revenue than men’s basketball revenue.

REVENUE GROWTH FOR THE CONFERENCE

Big 10 2009 2003 Ratio
MBB Revenues $138,054,933 $43,976,630 3.14
WBB Revenues $8,619,769 $12,837,167 0.67
Total Rev – Men+Women Sports $656,351,301 $493,419,907 1.33
       
MBB Rev as % of Total 21.0% 6.7% 3.14
WBB Rev as % of Total 1.3% 2.0% 0.67
Basketball as % of Total 22.3% 11.5% 1.94

Comparing aggregate conference revenue data from 2003 to 2009 and controlling for inflation by measuring both years in constant 2009 dollars, we can surmise that:

- Men’s basketball revenues have grown roughly 214% during that span while women’s basketball revenues have shrunk by 33%;

- Men’s and women’s basketball comprised 22.3% of aggregate revenue from men’s and women’s sports in 2009, significantly up from 11.5% in 2003.

One must surmise that the creation of The Big Ten Network has had a significant impact on the growth of men’s basketball revenues.

BIG TEN TOURNAMENT – A WEAKER DRAW AMONG BCS CONFERENCES

Lastly, based on attendance data from the NCAA for the 2009-2010 season:

- The Big Ten tournament ranked 5th in average attendance per session in 2010 with 16,325 fans per session (ACC, Big East, Big 12, and SEC Tournaments all had higher attendances per session);

This stands in contrast to the regular season, where in 2009-2010 the Big Ten was the only conference with an average attendance in excess of 12,000 fans per game.

All in all, and likely in large part to the creation of The Big Ten Network, the Big Ten’s men’s basketball revenues are among the best in the nation.

Many thanks to Saint Louis University Sports Business students Bryan Beasley, Jacob Fish, Brett Goldman, Jeff Tiedman, Jordan Erk, and Andrew Moses for their contributions to this article.

****************************************************************************************************

Follow Patrick on Twitter @ SportsDocRock or visit www.patrickrishe.net

Who is Atop the Big East in Basketball Revenue?

 If you read this site regularly or follow me on Twitter, you know that I am in Ireland from May 17-25th. While I’m away, I’m sharing with you the work of Patrick Rishe, my collegue at SportsMoney on Forbes.com. This is the fourth of a series of pieces Patrick did for SportsMoney on college basketball finance. You can find all of my pieces on football finance here.

By: Patrick Rishe

Part I of our coverage of the economics of college basketball compared the revenues of the top 14 rated Division I conferences as listed by the RPI ratings. And Part II provided an overview of the top revenue generating basketball programs in the country.

In Part III of our assessment of college basketball financials herein, we disaggregate a bit further and take a look at teams within the Big East Conference.

Indeed, the Big East is a financial beast.  Its 16-team conference generated the most conference revenue from men’s basketball among any conference in the country, topping $154 M in revenue for the 2009-10 season.

And due to its size and proficiency in getting a high percentage of teams into ”The Big Dance”, the conference makes quite a bit of money from March Madness.  According to NCAA financial data, over the last 6 years the Big East has earned $98.6 M in March Madness money based on their conference’s collective postseason performance.  This amounts to $15.1 M per year, best among all other Division I basketball conferences.

So with that as a framework, let’s further review the financials of individual schools within the Big East.  And recall from our earlier pieces that the financial data for these programs comes from the U.S. Department of Education and is for the 2009-10 academic year.  For reasons described in the afore-linked pieces, this data is highly robust and credible as schools must report their financials to the U.S. D.o.E.

WHICH BIG EAST TEAMS EARN THE MOST REVENUE?

Big East schools average $9.6 M from men’s basketball with a median of $7.2 M.

Louisville and Syracuse earned the most revenue from men’s basketball among Big East schools by far.  Louisville generated 169% more revenue than the league average while Syracuse earned 90% more than the average.

It helps when your schools rank 3rd (Louisville) and 2nd (Syracuse) nationally with respect to attendance, as these schools did during the 2009-2010 season.

4 schools made less than $5 M.  Cincinnati, Rutgers, and South Florida each generated revenues between $4.5-4.9 M.  And Notre Dame generated the least amount of revenue, just above $4 M.

TEAM MBB REV RATIO
Louisville $25,890,003 2.69
Syracuse $18,309,470 1.90
Marquette $13,877,475 1.44
West Virginia $13,306,654 1.38
Pittsburgh $13,117,849 1.36
Georgetown $10,074,618 1.05
Connecticut $7,745,145 0.80
Villanova $7,652,470 0.79
St. John’s $6,741,298 0.70
DePaul $6,528,661 0.68
Providence $6,460,838 0.67
Seton Hall $6,215,923 0.65
Cincinnati $4,927,771 0.51
Rutgers $4,634,026 0.48
South Florida $4,588,627 0.48
Notre Dame $4,051,468 0.42
     
MEAN $9,632,644 ***
MEDIAN $7,196,884 ***

When you factor in men’s basketball expenses, Louisville and Syracuse are the only 2 schools that earned profits in excess of $10 M, and only 3 other schools (Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Marquette) earned profits above $5 M.

The average men’s basketball profits reported was $3.5 M, the median profits was $1.45 M, and the only school reporting losses (albeit minimal losses) was Notre Dame.

TEAM MBB REV MBB EXP MBB PROFITS
Louisville $25,890,003 $9,089,769 $16,800,234
Syracuse $18,309,470 $8,086,376 $10,223,094
Pittsburgh $13,117,849 $6,046,724 $7,071,125
West Virginia $13,306,654 $6,377,761 $6,928,893
Marquette $13,877,475 $8,185,030 $5,692,445
Georgetown $10,074,618 $7,393,234 $2,681,384
Providence $6,460,838 $4,696,862 $1,763,976
Villanova $7,652,470 $6,117,021 $1,535,449
South Florida $4,588,627 $3,215,424 $1,373,203
Cincinnati $4,927,771 $3,754,077 $1,173,694
Connecticut $7,745,145 $6,940,903 $804,242
Rutgers $4,634,026 $4,495,147 $138,879
DePaul $6,528,661 $6,528,661 $-
Seton Hall $6,215,923 $6,215,923 $-
St. John’s $6,741,298 $6,741,298 $-
Notre Dame $4,051,468 $4,060,565 ($9,097)
       
Mean $9,632,644 $6,121,548 $3,511,095
Median $7,196,884 $6,296,842 $1,454,326

MARQUETTE RELIES MOST HEAVILY ON MEN’S BASKETBALL REVENUE

Next we analyze what percentage of revenue generated from men’s sports is generated by basketball.  Call this a “basketball reliance” metric.

Clearly, this percentage will be higher for schools without football.  Marquette is a perfect example of this, as nearly 63% of their revenue from men’s sports stem from men’s basketball.  Only Georgetown and Louisville rely on men’s basketball more heavily within the Big East.

      MBB REV AS
TEAM MBB REV MEN’S REV % OF MEN’S REV
Marquette $13,877,475 $22,161,737 62.6%
Georgetown $10,074,618 $24,377,817 41.3%
Louisville $25,890,003 $63,487,394 40.8%
Syracuse $18,309,470 $49,342,459 37.1%
Providence $6,460,838 $18,526,819 34.9%
Seton Hall $6,215,923 $19,223,666 32.3%
DePaul $6,528,661 $20,945,004 31.2%
West Virginia $13,306,654 $46,544,814 28.6%
Villanova $7,652,470 $27,688,127 27.6%
Pittsburgh $13,117,849 $49,218,556 26.7%
St. John’s $6,741,298 $32,098,344 21.0%
Cincinnati $4,927,771 $37,101,542 13.3%
Connecticut $7,745,145 $58,482,290 13.2%
South Florida $4,588,627 $39,190,939 11.7%
Rutgers $4,634,026 $55,564,642 8.3%
Notre Dame $4,051,468 $90,887,054 4.5%
       
MEAN $9,632,644 $40,927,575 27.2%
MEDIAN $7,196,884 $38,146,241 28.1%

In short, the data shows that the typical Big East school counted on revenue from men’s basketball as 27% of revenue from all men’s sports.

Only 4.5% of Notre Dame’s revenue from men’s sports come from basketball, lowest in the conference.  This isn’t surprising, given that Notre Dame generates so much revenue from football which they don’t have to share.

So it’s not a surprise that when you compare football to basketball revenues among Big East schools that have both sports, Notre Dame has the greatest disparity.

TEAM MBB REV FB REV FB / MBB RATIO
Notre Dame $4,051,468 $64,163,063 15.84
Rutgers $4,634,026 $19,494,261 4.21
South Florida $4,588,627 $16,562,391 3.61
Cincinnati $4,927,771 $13,325,304 2.7
West Virginia $13,306,654 $29,467,612 2.21
Connecticut $7,745,145 $14,400,371 1.86
Pittsburgh $13,117,849 $22,513,336 1.72
Syracuse $18,309,470 $19,152,691 1.05
Villanova $7,652,470 $5,228,231 0.68
Louisville $25,890,003 $15,537,276 0.6
Georgetown $10,074,618 $1,430,512 0.14
Marquette $13,877,475 N/A N/A
Providence $6,460,838 N/A N/A
DePaul $6,528,661 N/A N/A
Seton Hall $6,215,923 N/A N/A
St. John’s $6,741,298 N/A N/A
       
MEAN $9,632,644 $20,115,913 3.1
MEDIAN $7,196,884 $16,562,391 1.9

For Big East schools with football, the average football revenue was $20.1 M per school.  Furthermore, Big East schools averaged $310 in football revenue for every $100 in men’s basketball revenue.

For Notre Dame, however, they earn nearly 16 times more revenue from football than men’s basketball.  These sorts of things happen when you have your own network contract with NBC and you don’t have to share your football revenues with conference members as an independent.

CONFERENCE ANALYSIS

Big East Conference-Rev 2009 2003 Adjusted Infl. Ratio
MBB Revenues $154,122,296 $102,147,351 1.51
WBB Revenues $32,204,543 $11,567,706 2.78
Total Rev : Men+Women $513,858,519 $291,220,649 1.76
**********************************************************************************************  
MBB Rev as % of Total 30.0% 35.1% 0.86
WBB Rev as % of Total 6.3% 4.0% 1.58
Basketball as % of Total 36.3% 39.0% 0.93

Comparing aggregate conference revenue data from 2003 to 2009 and controlling for inflation by measuring both years in constant 2009 dollars, we can surmise that:

- men’s basketball revenues have grown roughly 51% during that span while women’s basketball revenues have  grown 178%;

- men’s and women’s basketball comprised 39% of aggregate revenue from men’s and women’s sports in 2003, but now only comprise 36.3% of revenue.  This is most likely due to disproportionately higher revenues for Big East football.

Note, however, that given the Big East’s relatively weaker football stature among the BCS conferences, you can be assured that this percentage will be even lower for conferences like the SEC and Big Ten.

BIG EAST TOURNAMENT – BIG ATTENDANCES IN THE BIG APPLE

Lastly, based on data from the NCAA on attendances for the 2009-2010 season:

- The Big East tournament ranked 2nd in average attendance per session in 2010 with 19, 375 fans (only the ACC was higher at over 23,000 fans per session);

- Big East games during the regular season draw an average of just over 11,000 fans, which places the conference 4th behind the Big Ten, SEC, and Big 12 for most regular season fans.

In the end, the Big East is indeed a financial beast among men’s basketball conferences.

Many thanks to Saint Louis University Sports Business students Bryan Beasley, Jacob Fish, Brett Goldman, Jeff Tiedman, Jordan Erk, and Andrew Moses for their contributions to this article.

****************************************************************************************************

Follow Patrick on Twitter @ SportsDocRock or visit www.patrickrishe.net

Duke, Louisville and UNC are College Basketball’s Financial Heavyweights

Image via Getty Images by @daylife

If you read this site regularly or follow me on Twitter, you know that I am in Ireland from May 17-25th. While I’m away, I’m sharing with you the work of Patrick Rishe, my collegue at SportsMoney on Forbes.com. This is the fourth of a series of pieces Patrick did for SportsMoney on college basketball finance. You can find all of my pieces on football finance here.

By: Patrick Rishe

Duke University is the top revenue generating men’s basketball program in the country, generating over 160% more revenue than the national average among other BCS basketball programs.

In Part I of my review of college basketball financials entitled “Revenue Comparisons Among Division I Men’s Basketball Conferences” using financial data for the 2009-2010 academic year, we saw that:

- The Big East Conference was the only conference that generated over $150 M in men’s basketball revenue;

- The Big Ten and ACC were the only other conferences that generated over $133 M in men’s basketball revenue;

- Only 3 conferences (Big Ten, ACC, SEC) generated over $10 M in men’s basketball revenue per school.

In Part II of my analysis of college basketball financials herein, I analyze which BCS-conference schools generate the most revenues from men’s college basketball.

In Pictures: The Top Earning College Basketball Coaches

Similar to my first report, the data reported herein was obtained from the U.S. Department of Education. Federal statute requires schools to report the financials for their athletic departments, and it also helps define itemized expense and revenue categories which builds uniformity in data reporting.  This makes for a robust data source.  The most recent data available is for the 2009 academic year.

DUKE, LOUISVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA TOP THE REVENUE LIST

There are 6 BCS Conferences (Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, ACC, Pac 10, SEC) with a combined 73 teams.

The average BCS Men’s Basketball program generated $10.1 M in revenue.  The median revenue was significantly lower at $8.8 M, which suggests (as we’ll soon see) that some teams near the top of the distribution were significant outliers and were well above the national average.

The table below ranks all 73 BCS teams in terms of their men’s basketball revenue reported in 2009, and calculates a ‘ratio’ between that team’s revenue relative to the national mean.

Rank Team MBB Rev Index
1 Duke $26,667,056 2.64
2 Louisville $25,890,003 2.57
3 North Carolina $20,551,168 2.04
4 Arizona $19,285,038 1.91
5 Syracuse $18,309,470 1.82
6 Wisconsin $17,666,311 1.75
7 Kentucky $16,781,239 1.66
8 Indiana $16,570,158 1.64
9 Ohio St. $16,190,723 1.61
10 Michigan St. $16,138,167 1.60
11 Kansas $16,116,502 1.60
12 Texas $15,602,348 1.55
13 Arkansas $15,515,830 1.54
14 Illinois $14,413,222 1.43
15 Marquette $13,877,475 1.38
16 Minnesota $13,733,316 1.36
17 West Virginia $13,306,654 1.32
18 Tennessee $13,301,579 1.32
19 Pittsburgh $13,117,849 1.30
20 UCLA $12,353,487 1.23
21 Oklahoma State $12,085,306 1.20
22 Washington $11,481,376 1.14
23 Alabama $10,766,327 1.07
24 Maryland $10,739,282 1.06
25 NC State $10,354,157 1.03
26 Florida $10,184,136 1.01
27 Georgetown $10,074,618 1.00
28 Northwestern $10,048,801 1.00
29 Virginia $9,788,223 0.97
30 Auburn $9,588,191 0.95
31 Missouri $9,540,265 0.95
32 Virginia Tech $9,252,293 0.92
33 South Carolina $9,190,794 0.91
34 Vanderbilt $9,182,578 0.91
35 Georgia Tech $9,143,914 0.91
36 Wake Forest $9,064,780 0.90
37 Texas A & M $8,853,325 0.88
38 Iowa $8,796,540 0.87
39 Oklahoma $8,626,247 0.86
40 Arizona St. $8,591,421 0.85
41 Penn St. $8,384,315 0.83
42 Georgia $8,331,515 0.83
43 Michigan $8,321,413 0.83
44 Mississippi State $8,205,804 0.81
45 Boston College $8,026,369 0.80
46 Purdue $7,791,967 0.77
47 Connecticut $7,745,145 0.77
48 Villanova $7,652,470 0.76
49 Kansas State $7,259,800 0.72
50 Iowa State $7,182,665 0.71
51 University of Miami $7,081,121 0.70
52 Clemson $7,054,691 0.70
53 California $6,967,208 0.69
54 Ole Miss $6,821,532 0.68
55 LSU $6,767,009 0.67
56 St. John’s $6,741,298 0.67
57 DePaul $6,528,661 0.65
58 Providence $6,460,838 0.64
59 Seton Hall $6,215,923 0.62
60 Stanford $6,191,021 0.61
61 Nebraska $6,022,208 0.60
62 Florida State $5,756,857 0.57
63 Baylor $5,737,350 0.57
64 Texas Tech $5,092,921 0.51
65 Oregon St. $4,938,930 0.49
66 Cincinnati $4,927,771 0.49
67 Rutgers $4,634,026 0.46
68 South Florida $4,588,627 0.46
69 Notre Dame $4,051,468 0.40
70 Colorado $3,587,371 0.36
71 Washington St. $3,544,745 0.35
72 USC $3,535,629 0.35
73 Oregon $3,240,150 0.32
       
  MEAN $10,083,959  
  MEDIAN $8,853,325  

Significant points to note:

- The Top 3 schools financially in men’s basketball (Duke, Louisville, North Carolina) are the only schools that (A) generated over $20 M and (B) earned at least 100% more men’s basketball revenue relative to the national average.

Duke and Louisville truly stand out, generating 164% and 157% more than the national average, respectively.

- 13 schools generated at least 50% more revenue from men’s basketball than the national average.

The Big Ten leads the way with 4 of those teams (Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio St, Michigan), then 2 each from the ACC, Big East, SEC, and Big 12, and only 1 Pac 10 school (Arizona).

- Conversely, there are 9 schools that generated at least 50% less revenue from men’s basketball than the national average.  Not only are 4 of those 9 schools from the Pac 10 (Oregon, USC, Washington St, Oregon St), but another of these 9 schools (Colorado) will be joining the Pac 12 next season.

Indeed, we see why Larry Scott, new Commissioner of the Pac 12 Conference, was hired to infuse new life, vitality, and aggressive revenue-seeking behavior into this entity.

BIG TEN HAS SEEN THE MOST GROWTH

Likely linked to the creation of The Big Ten Network which launched in August 2007, the Big Ten has shown the most growth in men’s basketball revenues since 2003.

The table below compares men’s basketball revenue for the entire conference in 2009 to 2003.  It corrects for inflation by using CPI data from 2009 and 2003 to calculate the 2003 revenues in “2009 dollars”.  Lastly, a “growth ratio” is calculated to see the growth in “real revenues” from 2003 to 2009.

Conference 2009 2003 2003 (in 2009 $) Growth Ratio
Big Ten $138,054,933 $37,708,837 $43,976,630 3.14
ACC
$133,479,911
$84,761,805
$98,323,694 1.57
Big East $154,122,296 $88,058,061 $102,147,351 1.51
SEC $124,636,534 $73,261,482 $84,983,319 1.47
Big 12 $105,706,308 $67,572,143 $78,383,686 1.35
Pac 10 $80,129,005 $54,537,074 $63,263,006 1.27

4 of the 6 BCS conferences have seen real growth rates in men’s basketball revenue between 35-57%.

However, the Big Ten has seen the greatest growth by far.  Their conference revenues from men’s basketball are 214% greater than in 2003 after adjusting for inflation.

Data like this makes it clear why conferences want their own sports networks.

If any of the conferences could use a cable network to promote its own sports league, its the Pac 10.  At 27% growth, their men’s basketball revenues have grown the least over that 6 year span.

Please be sure to check back in later this week as our look into the Economics of College Basketball continues, including a more detailed look at individual conferences.

Many thanks to Saint Louis University Sports Business students Bryan Beasley, Jacob Fish, Brett Goldman, Jeff Tiedman, Jordan Erk, and Andrew Moses for their contributions to this article.

************************************************************************

Follow Patrick on Twitter @ SportsDocRock or visit www.patrickrishe.net