Category Archives: Football
A Look At Oregon’s Alleged NCAA Violations: What Could Hurt The Ducks The Most
After making a public records request in December, the Oregonian and KATU.com received over 500 pages of documents related to alleged NCAA violations committed by Oregon’s football program between 2008 and 2011. The documents detail findings related largely to Oregon’s payment to a recruiting service company, whose talent scout, Will Lyles, allegedly had impermissible contact with prospective Oregon student-athletes. While reports have focused upon Oregon’s payment of $25,000 to Lyles’ recruiting service agency, it appears that the bulk of the NCAA’s concern does not lie with that payment, but rather, practices that Lyles allegedly engaged in.
One such practice is that Lyles allegedly did not provide written or video reports about recruits to Oregon. Under NCAA bylaw 13.14.3, recruiting services must provide subscribers with written or video reports quarterly. Up until 2011, Lyles allegedly provided neither, but instead, provided Oregon with oral reports about prospective student-athletes. On the face, this practice seems like a minor issue and another instance of the NCAA making a mountain out of a molehill. However, the NCAA requires recruiting and scouting service companies to provide written or video reports to prevent institutions from gaining unfair advantages when it comes to gleaning information about recruits. Requiring written or video reports ensures that each institution subscribing to the service receives the same information.
Given that Lyles allegedly was providing oral reports to Oregon, the notion is that Oregon was getting information about recruits that other institutions using Lyles’ services were not receiving. It is unknown whether this was the case, but a number of recruits with ties to Lyles eventually signed with Oregon. This, however, does not in and of itself depict any impropriety by Oregon or Lyles.
Perhaps the biggest issue Oregon faces, though, is explaining allegations that upon the NCAA’s discovery that Lyles wasn’t providing Oregon with written or video reports, that Lyles allegedly provided “outdated” reports to Oregon. From the outside, this allegation depicts a cover-up of sorts. If a cover-up was in fact orchestrated, it is for the NCAA to decide who ordered the cover-up. Did Lyles earnestly provide written reports to save face with the NCAA in an honest attempt to continue being an NCAA-sanctioned recruiting service? Or, did Oregon ask him to do so after the NCAA realized that Lyles hadn’t provided the report? In the coming months, Oregon should prepare to answer this question. Should the NCAA find that the cover-up was upon Oregon’s request, the program will likely suffer stiffer penalties from the NCAA.
For now, the biggest issue Oregon faces is whether the football program’s alleged receipt of Lyles’ oral reports on recruits was a major or secondary NCAA violation. Secondary infractions are those isolated or inadvertent instances that only provide minimal recruiting, competitive or other advantages. Major infractions provide major recruiting or competitive advantages. Over the coming months, the NCAA’s committee on infractions will issue a final report on its findings related to whether a major or secondary violation was committed. Thereafter, sometime within the year, Oregon will have a hearing before the committee on infractions.
The good news, perhaps, for Oregon is that reports indicate that the NCAA found neither a lack of institutional control nor unethical conduct present. These factors should help Oregon avoid some of the NCAA’s harsher penalties. However, one issue Oregon continues to face is that the NCAA may determine it is a repeat violator, as the alleged violations came within five years of Oregon’s 2004 violations. Should Oregon be deemed to be a repeat violator of the NCAA bylaws, harsher penalties could be imposed on that ground.
Overall, Oregon must prepare the case as to why this alleged violation did not amount to a major violation. To do this, it must show that it did not receive major recruiting or competitive advantages. This may be difficult, given the recruits Lyles was allegedly tied to who committed to Oregon. Reports indicate that Lyles served as a “mentor” to LaMichael James, Tra Carson, Dontae Williams and Marcus Davis, all of whom committed to Oregon. Thus, Oregon must work to demonstrate that it would have recruited those student-athletes even without the information Lyles provided them with orally. Given the talent level of these players, this arguably won’t be difficult to accomplish. Additionally, Oregon must demonstrate that those recruits’ decisions to commit to Oregon were unattached to any relationship they may have had with Lyles. This may prove to be the more difficult task for Oregon. However, given the program’s offerings and success over recent years, it likely will not be impossible. Nonetheless, spring is shaping up to be a busy time for Oregon’s athletics department.
Alicia Jessop is a Colorado-based attorney and the founder of the sports law website RulingSports.com. Follow her @RulingSports and at AliciaJessop.com.
The Impact Of A $3.1 Million Verdict Against Riddell On Future Football Concussion Litigation
Jurors in a small southern town in Colorado found that Riddell Helmets contributorily negligent in the head injuries a former Trinidad High School (CO) football sustained in 2008. As a result of its verdict, the jury awarded damages in the amount of $11.5 million, of which Riddell is responsible for paying $3.1 million.
The lawsuit arose after Rhett Ridolfi participated in a “Machine Gun Drill” during an early morning practice. During the course of the drill, Ridolfi allegedly made helmet-to-helmet contact with another teammate. This contact resulted in Ridolfi sustaining a serious head injury, which according to Ridolfi’s attorney, has left Ridolfi with impulse and behavioral problems and has left in a walking brace and with limited functions on his body’s left side.
Ridolfi’s mother filed the lawsuit on his behalf in March 2010. The lawsuit alleged negligence not only against Riddell, but also against six of Ridolfi’s football coaches. Three of the coaches were found by the jury to be negligent. However, reports indicate that damages were not ordered to be paid by them. Ridolfi’s attorney told the media that he will be filing a motion to have Riddell pay all of the $11.5 million in damages awarded by the jury. Riddell plans to appeal the verdict.
While the court transcript has not been reviewed, it appears that Ridolfi’s attorney argued that the defendants were liable for two types of products liability negligence: product defect and failure to warn.
With respect to the product defect claim, Ridolfi’s attorneys argued that the padding in the front of Ridolfi’s helmet which was manufactured by Riddell wasn’t safe enough. They also argued that another type of padding could have been used which would have protected Ridolfi. This argument was rejected by the jury.
However, the jury found that Riddell was negligent in the type of warning it provided on its helmet, which was worn by Ridolfi. Under tort law, a product may be defective as a result of the manufacturer’s failure to give adequate warnings as to the risks involved in using the product. For liability to attach, the danger must not be apparent to users.
Reports indicate that Riddell has included a warning label on its helmets since 2002. However, in this instance, it appears that the Colorado jury found that the warning label present on Ridolfi’s helmet in 2008 was inadequate. This was likely due to the fact that the warning label did not warn against the possibility that the helmet would not protect against concussions and serious bodily injury sustained from instances including helmet-to-helmet contact.
A statement released by Riddell indicated that it believed that if testimony from a “warnings” expert would have been admitted by the judge, that it would have been fully exonerated in this case. It is likely that Riddell’s appeal will argue that point, as well as the damages awarded and that its warning was sufficient.
This case, which arose out of a small town in Colorado, likely has larger implications than the damages which Riddell is facing paying. First, it demonstrates juries’ willingness to hold helmet manufacturers liable for failing to adequately warn of the injuries football players can sustain even while wearing a helmet. This factor is relevant as Riddell is currently facing at least two other cases on this issue, one of which is brought by 4,000 former NFL players. Whether juries in other jurisdictions–where the other cases against Riddell are located–will find similarly will only be determined by time. Furthermore, it is to be seen whether other courts allow Riddell’s “warnings” expert to take the stand and how that testimony may impact the outcome of the trial.
Riddell, however, can likely breathe a small sigh of relief that the Colorado jury did not find the design of its product to be defective. Thus, Riddell may feel fairly certain that the product design defense it has created may be successful in other jurisdictions and in front of other jurors.
Nonetheless, the road for Riddell is not clear. In coming months, it faces cases against plaintiffs who are more well-known (for example, the family of the late Junior Seau), have deeper pockets and greater media attention on their sides. It is to be seen whether given these factors, juries return similar verdicts to that reached by the Colorado jury.
Alicia Jessop is a Colorado-based attorney and the founder of the sports law website RulingSports.com. Nothing in this article is legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is intended to be created by this article. Follow Alicia @RulingSports and at AliciaJessop.com.
UConn to Add 2,000 Temporary Seats for Michigan Game
By: Hunter Mundy
The Connecticut Huskies will be hosting the Michigan Wolverines football team on September 21, 2013. For UConn, this may be the biggest home game ever scheduled. The game will take place at the Huskies’ Rentaschler Field, which has a normal capacity of 40,000 fans. This will be the second game in the contracted series between the two teams. The first game, a 2010 Wolverine victory of 30-10, was held before of a crowd of 113,090 at Michigan Stadium.
Connecticut normally allots 3,000 tickets to visiting opponents, but the contract with Michigan requires UConn to reserve 5,000 tickets for the Wolverines. In order to keep the same amount of season ticket opportunities, UCONN plans to add 2,000 temporary seats to the stadium’s capacity. While the Huskies have had numerous games in past years where crowds reached the 40,000 capacity, the additional seats, along with this game’s high demand for tickets, are sure to set a new record for football attendance.
In 2009, UConn’s average attendance was 38,229, and in 2012 the average number of spectators at Connecticut’s six home games was 34,672. Over four years, the ticket demand for Huskies football tickets has decreased by approximately 3 percent. Not taking into account required donations during the 2009-2011 cycle, tickets ranged from $150 for reserved seats to $210 for mezzanine chairs for a six-game home schedule. For 2013, which has a seven-game home schedule featuring the Wolverines, season ticket prices range from $175 for reserved seats to $280 for mezzanine chairs. UCONN/Michigan game attendees (outside of those purchased through the Wolverines allotment) will be required to purchase season tickets through the Huskies Athletic Ticket Office.
Some may ask why Michigan would not renegotiate or buy their way out of this contract in order to allow for an extra home game and the additional revenue that would generate. Dave Brandon, Michigan athletic director, stated to CBS Sports that even though he could have broken the deal, he opted not to because, “it would screw up [UConn’s] schedule” and force Michigan to “run around trying to find another game.” While cancelling this game would have led to scheduling difficulties for both groups, allowing this game to take place is truly a win-win for both institutions.
Michigan’s allotted 5,000 seats for this game does not nearly meet the expected ticket demand of Wolverine fans. With UConn located in one of the most populated areas of the United States, Michigan alumni are plentiful. For instance, the University of Michigan Alumni Club of New York, based in New York City, has over 13,000 members. Additionally, there are at least eight UM alumni clubs within a three-hour drive of UConn’s Rentaschler Field. UM Alumni Club members typically have the opportunity to purchase tickets for most home and away Michigan football games. However, it is the norm for these benefits to exclude rivalry games with Notre Dame and Ohio State as well as other games with traditional high-ticket demand.
As an example of the excitement and limited supply of tickets in the marketplace, the UConn game has also been added to the excluded list of games available directly to UM alumni club members. Look for UM fans throughout the region to either increase their UM athletic club donations and/or purchase UConn season football tickets in an effort to see their beloved Wolverines live and in person.
The 2013 season will be Connecticut’s first year in the newly named and configured American Athletic Conference. Having a home opponent on the schedule such as Michigan could not come at a better time. With losing former Big East rivals West Virginia, Syracuse and Pittsburgh from the Huskies schedule, the Wolverines visit to Rentaschler Field will give the university and its football program a spark and a chance to shine on the national stage.
Many college programs choose to schedule traditional powers in order invigorate their home schedules and grow their program’s budgets. For instance, UConn’s rival Rutgers hosts the SEC’s Arkansas Razorbacks on the same day the Wolverines visit the Huskies.
In 2010, Duke University hosted the Alabama Crimson Tide, which set a modern day attendance record at the Blue Devils’ Wallace Wade Stadium (35,237). The #1 Crimson Tide routed Duke 62-13 in front of what ESPN dubbed “a crimson coated stadium named for a former Alabama coach.” Duke also used temporary stadium seating to accommodate the extra Alabama fans for this big contract game.
Additionally, Michigan State, along with Central Michigan, Eastern Michigan and Western Michigan are a part of an agreement known as “Celebrate the State.” This contract contains 12 games from 2011 to 2020 with Michigan State facing each team four times during the period. One game of each these four game series will be played on the home field of Central Michigan, Eastern Michigan and Western Michigan. In 2012, Michigan State visited Central Michigan and won 41-7. This game set an attendance record for Kelly/Shorts Stadium of 35,127 spectators with plenty of green-clad Spartans fans in attendance. Johnny Adams, Michigan State’s cornerback, stated to ESPN, “It was a little different, a smaller environment; but at the end of the day it’s all football. It’s good for the fans and it’s good for Central to bring the fans out here and put on a great show.”
Auburn Justice: The Serious Issue Facing Former Auburn Football Player Mike McNeil
Selena Roberts’ serious allegations against the Auburn athletics department earlier this week caused an uproar among members of the media and college football fans. If true, the story’s accusations of rampant drug use by football players, coaches handing players money under the table and academic officials changing football players’ grades to ensure their eligibility, are enough to turn Auburn athletics on its head. Tucked away in the story, though, is an issue more pressing and with greater possible harm than any NCAA sanction can impose. It is one that may cost former Auburn football player, Mike McNeil, his freedom.
McNeil is currently facing trial on two felony counts of first-degree robbery. The charges stem from allegations that four former Auburn football players robbed a home while armed. While building allegations of Auburn’s alleged athletic improprieties to a crescendo, Roberts quickly slipped a fact into her story that a trained legal eye would not let go unnoticed. Eight paragraphs into Roberts’ Auburn expose, was the following quote,
“To show you how innocent he is, Mike is willing to go to trial because he says he didn’t do it,” says Ben Hand, who recently was dismissed as McNeil’s attorney after the family formally complained that he had a conflict of interest. “Mike McNeil didn’t rob anyone.”
As it turns out, McNeil’s attorney previously represented a man who lived in the house that McNeil allegedly robbed. In the legal world, this is called a “conflict of interest.” And in the legal world, a conflict of interest is a reason for which a criminal defendant can appeal the outcome of his case, should he be convicted.
Roberts’ assertion in her article that Hand was dismissed as McNeil’s attorney is incorrect. That is because today, the Auburn educated judge hearing McNeil’s case ruled that Hand could not withdraw as counsel for McNeil’s case. Rather, McNeil’s case will proceed to trial next Monday.
At that trial, McNeil faces three options when it comes to legal representation. The first, is to be represented by a lawyer who once represented someone whose home McNeil allegedly robbed. The second is for McNeil, without a college degree, to represent himself in a felony case in which he faces 21 years to life in prison. The third option, is for McNeil to hire a new attorney who will assist his conflicted attorney. That attorney will have 72 hours to prepare for a trial that took the prosecution nearly two years to bring to fruition.
Arguably, there is not an attractive choice present in this bunch. As depicted above, Hand has maintained McNeil’s innocence to the media and will likely advocate zealously for him. Additionally, the presiding judge in McNeil’s case, in ruling that Hand cannot withdraw from the case, determined that the prosecution will only proceed to trial against McNeil on two charges, as opposed to the seven charges he was originally facing. This was based upon the judge’s finding that conflicts existed between Hand and those charges, but were not present in the two charges McNeil continues to face. Regardless of these facts, questions likely persist in McNeil’s mind as to whether his attorney bears any biases towards him and if he will receive a fair shot at justice.
As the time on the clock dwindles down to McNeil’s trial date, a review of 11th Circuit (the circuit in which Alabama is located) and Supreme Court case law is necessary. One basis upon which a defendant can appeal his conviction is for ineffective assistance of counsel. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a criminal defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel is violated where a defendant’s attorney has an actual conflict of interest that affects the defendant adversely. Something is an actual conflict of interest when a lawyer has inconsistent interests. 11th circuit case law says that a conflict of interest exists when a defendant can point to specific instances in the record to suggest an actual conflict or impairment of interest. Specific instances could include an attorney choosing to elicit or failing to elicit evidence helpful to one client but harmful to another.
The question here, then, is does Hand have inconsistent interests when it comes to representing McNeil? While Hand represented a resident of the home McNeil allegedly robbed, that representation came on an unrelated matter that occurred prior to the alleged robbery. Given the differential between the matters and the time that has passed sense, does an actual conflict exist?
If an actual conflict of interest existed, case law also requires that the conflict adversely affected the counsel’s performance in order to successfully appeal on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. A defendant must show three things to prove an adverse effect: 1. That the defense attorney could have pursued a plausible alternative strategy, 2. that the alternative strategy was reasonable and 3. that the alternative strategy was not followed because it conflicted with the attorney’s external loyalties.
At this stage, only McNeil and Hand know what alternative strategies exist, if any. And at this stage, it is likely that they are the only two people who know why one defense strategy was chosen over another.
Should McNeil be convicted and wish to appeal his case, the real question that may persist is whether he waived his right to conflict-free counsel. A defendant waives his right to conflict-free counsel when he chooses to proceed to trial with an attorney who has an adverse conflict of interest. Arguably, this decision could bar an appeal on this issue, as the Supreme Court case of Johnson v. Zerbst found that a “waiver of the right to conflict-free counsel ‘disposes of the need to evaluate the actual or potential ineffectiveness of counsel caused by the alleged conflicts of interests.’” To demonstrate a waiver, it must be shown that the defendant was aware of the conflict, recognized it could impact his defense and knew of his right to obtain other counsel. Notably, today, the presiding judge in McNeil’s case advised him of his right to proceed to trial without an attorney or with a new attorney to assist Hand. It is to be seen what decision McNeil makes.
Many unknowns face Mike McNeil at this moment. The decisions facing McNeil as his trial approaches are lofty. Truth be told, they are likely as big as the choice he made to commit to playing football at Auburn University.
Follow Alicia Jessop on Twitter @RulingSports.
The BCS Presidential Oversight Committee Meeting: Questions Presidents Must Ask
Today, the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee is meeting in Washington, D.C. At the meeting, FBS conference commissioners will present the new post-season model, which they endorsed last week, to 12 university presidents. The BCS has acknowledged that the proposal involves a four-team seeded playoff. Other reports indicate that the four teams would be selected by a committee and would face-off in already existing bowl games. Additional reports indicate that the site of the national championship game would be determined by a bidding system. While the commissioner’s proposed new post-season model marks clear differences from the current BCS system, university presidents should ask the following questions and require sufficient answers before signing off on the plan.
1. Term of the Agreement
The first question presidents must ask, is how long of an agreement must they enter into if they approve the proposed plan? The current BCS system has been in place since 1998. While it was adopted to thwart previous criticism of the NCAA football post-season model, the current BCS system has attracted a large amount of criticism.
Recognizing the amount of criticism that seems to befall any college football post-season model, university presidents should suggest that the term of this agreement be long enough to work any kinks out of the system, but not so long that changes cannot be made if it turns out to be an imperfect system. In that regard, a five to six-year agreement would likely be the most beneficial term.
The elephant in the room when it comes to the length of the term, is arguably television contracts. The expiration of the BCS’s current agreement coincides with the expiration of its television agreements. Thus, there is the possibility that the BCS and conference commissioners believe that a lengthier agreement will benefit network negotiations. Arguably, the longer that the BCS and conference commissioners can say that the new deal is in place, the more that networks will be willing to spend on deals.
However, by shortening the term, the conferences and universities take away some of the negotiating power from the networks. Shortening the term essentially requires networks to re-negotiate their television contracts at the end of the term. Understandably, this opens up the possibility of conferences and universities obtaining more money from multiple television contracts.
2. The Selection Committee
As noted above, it appears that conference commissioners propose that the teams that participate in the four-team playoff be selected by a committee. This is arguably the least controversial proposal brought by the commissioners. Most notably, a selection committee is used to seed the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament. Although it is an imperfect method, it works. Nonetheless, the presidents should question how the committee will be made up, and what safeguards will be in place to ensure that the nation’s top-four teams play in the playoff.
3. Costs
The biggest issue university presidents should have with the proposed system, is its cost. For all intensive purposes, under the proposed model, a team that makes the national championship game would be playing in two bowl games. Playing in two bowl games understandably involves significant costs.
Before approving the proposed model, university presidents must rest assured that they understand the extent of these costs and who they will be borne by. Under the current BCS model, teams playing in BCS bowl games are required to purchase a certain amount of tickets. If they do not sell these tickets, they eat their cost. This can cost a school hundreds of thousands of dollars. Additionally, there are large travel costs associated with playing in bowl games. Under the proposed model, these costs will now have to be borne twice. This is because teams will have to travel to a bowl site to play in the playoff and then again to whichever city bid the highest to host the national championship game.
For contractual reasons, it is unlikely that the commissioners will sway away from hosting the playoff at a bowl site. Thus, university presidents must request that the BCS or conferences pay some portion of their travel costs, in order to make this an economically feasible solution.
Overall, in presenting this proposal, the conference commissioners have answered many questions and addressed many of the criticisms of the current BCS model. However, it is clear that issues remain that must be addressed before it is adopted as the new college football post-season model.
A Lucky Opportunity: How Andrew Luck’s Success Has Helped Stanford Athletics
One thing is certain to happen this evening at Radio City Music Hall: The first name to be called in the 2012 NFL Draft will be that of former Stanford quarterback Andrew Luck.
In his four years at Stanford, Luck threw for 31 wins, led Stanford to three bowl appearances and was a runner-up for the Heisman Trophy twice, all while completing an engineering degree in architectural design. Luck’s impressive resume at Stanford left the university with not only a stronger football program, but with a great marketing opportunity.
Joe Karlgaard has served as Stanford’s Senior Associate Athletic Director for Development since February 2011. Prior to that, he was the athletic director at Oberlin College for six years and as a Stanford student, worked in Stanford’s track and field office. When asked whether a Stanford student-athlete has captivated donors like Luck, Karlgaard says the school has never seen a current student-athlete as celebrated as Luck.
“I think that Andrew certainly has a profile in college athletics that we haven’t seen at Stanford in a long time. Tiger Woods may have a similar profile, but his profile grew after he left Stanford and won the Masters. Luck is a two-time Heisman finalist, who helped us turn around our football program and performed well in the classroom,” Karlgaard explained.
The profile Luck developed during his four-year tenure at Stanford has assisted the Stanford athletics department in fundraising. In particular, the athletics department has received two anonymous donations totaling $15 million dollars from donors who said they were inspired by Luck. While these large donations were definitely given as a result of Luck’s presence at Stanford, Karlgaard believes that Luck has motivated others to donate money to the Stanford athletics department.
The $15 million which the Stanford athletics department received from donors who were inspired by Luck will only further propel Luck’s positive presence on the campus. According to Karlgaard, the $15 million will be used to fund endowment and capital projects. One capital project that will be funded in part by the $15 million donation, is Stanford’s renovations to its Arrillaga Family Sports Center. Stanford will break ground this summer on the 18 month renovation process to the facility. Renovations will include an expanded weight room, new football locker room, two new auditoriums, new football coaches offices and new film rooms. The total cost of the renovations to the Arrillaga Family Sports Center is expected to be $18 million, of which Karlgaard indicates has all been raised by Stanford.
Luck’s presence as Stanford has been used by the athletics department to generate annual giving donations. Stanford athletics utilizes the website BuckCardinal.com for annual giving purposes. As of this Tuesday, the front page of the website features a nine-and-a-half minute video featuring Luck discussing his experience at Stanford. Karlgaard said that the email was pushed out to donors who have not given this year to the annual find with invitation for them to donate to the athletics department. Within 24 hours of the video being uploaded, it had received over 2,000 page views.
As for whether Luck’s being drafted number-one will further motivate donors to give money to Stanford athletics, Karlgaard said, “I don’t think his going number-one necessarily changes the minds of our donors regarding how they feel about Luck or Stanford football. He’s the whole package. He’s the consummate student-athlete as Stanford envisions it. His success on the football field and his commitment to finishing his degree in a rigorous subject, like architecture, have inspired our donors at a variety of levels. I don’t think his going number-one has any real impact. If the Colts decided to take Robert Griffin III, I don’t think we would see any real downturn to our donations for development.”
Today, there is an air of excitement on the Stanford campus, as the school’s quarterback is expected to be the first name called in the NFL Draft. However, given the profile Andrew Luck built-in his four years at Stanford, his name will certainly continue to ring out on Stanford’s campus.
Georgia Tech Fans Costing Athletic Department Millions
Guest Author: Taylor King of ChuckOliver.net
Dan Radakovich and Paul Johnson must sit in their respective offices at 150 Bobby Dodd Way and shake their heads in disbelief. They look out at Bobby Dodd Stadium and must wonder how they are going to fill the seats next season. Not only does it look bad for recruiting and player morale, The Institute is losing millions of dollars. And with the “Big 3” games-Clemson, Virginia Tech and UGA-on the road this year, the revenue loss for the upcoming seasons has to be a hot topic for the Athletic Director and Head Football Coach with no solution in sight.
If you look at the 2011 football season, Tech lost just over $2.3 million in tickets sales at home football games alone. How did I come up with such a figure? Tech sold 337,622 of the potential 385,000 seats for its 2011 home games (87%.) With an average ticket price of $50 multiplied to the difference of 47,378 empty seats, a figure of around $2,368,900 in revenue lost can be attributed to seats that were not purchased during the season.
That is astronomical if you think that the number does not include any monies lost in concessions or merchandise sales. The ticket office even ran a few deals during the year which include the three for $99 for select ACC home games and the four tickets, four drinks, four hotdogs and a media guide for $100 for the Family Weekend game against UNC.
So what is it going to take for fans to start showing up? Click to keep reading…
Did Missouri Overstate Its Football Expenses?
When reviewing the Department of Education’s most recent Equity in Athletics Disclosure Report, one item stood out: Missouri’s football expenses rose sharply between 2009-10 and 2010-11.
In 2009, Missouri’s total football expenses were reported as being $13.76 million. In its initial 2010-11 Equity in Athletics Disclosure, Missouri reported that its football team’s expenses totaled around $20 million. A jump of $6.24 million led several media outlets to question Missouri about the sharp rise in its football team’s expenses.
As it turns out, Missouri did not go gangbusters in spending during the 2010-11 season. Rather, it was merely a typo which caused the school to report that its football expenses increased by $6.24 million over a one-year period.
While it truly was most likely a typo which caused this reporting error, other media outlets noted that Missouri’s initial 2010-11 football expense reporting value of $20 million was closer in par to that of SEC football teams. Late last year, Missouri announced that it would be leaving the Big 12 to join the SEC. When the announcement was made, many wondered if Missouri could compete in the SEC in football.
Along with Missouri, Texas A&M will be leaving the Big 12 to begin play in the SEC this upcoming season. If Missouri and Texas A&M were members of the SEC during the 2010-11 season, how would their football expenses stack up amongst those of the rest of the conference?
The chart below depicts each football team’s total expenses during the 2010-11 season, as reported to the Department of Education. This data is the best available to gauge such expenses, as it is the only public report available providing this type of data for both public and private institutions. However, the data is not perfect. For instance, there are no set guidelines as to how expenses are calculated, other than the Department of Education does not allow schools to add in capital expenses to their expense value. Nonetheless, it does provide insight into which football teams are spending the most.
| Team | Total Expenses |
| 1. Auburn | $39,069,676.00 |
| 2. Alabama | $31,580,059.00 |
| 3. Florida | $26,263,539.00 |
| 4. Arkansas | $24,059,193.00 |
| 5. South Carolina | $22,482,479.00 |
| 6. Georgia | $22,036,338.00 |
| 7. LSU | $21,492,741.00 |
| 8. Tennessee | $19,135,650.00 |
| 9. Ole Miss | $17,764,174.00 |
| 10. Vanderbilt | $16,507,997.00 |
| 11. Texas A&M | $15,560,216.00 |
| 12. Missouri | $14,983,805.00 |
| 13. Kentucky | $14,352,110.00 |
| 14. Mississippi State | $11,766,024.00 |
The good news for Missouri and Texas A&M, is that if they were members of the SEC during the 2010-11 season, their football teams would not have expended the least amount of money in the SEC. The bad news for Missouri and Texas A&M, is that Kentucky and Mississippi State have never been known for their SEC football competitiveness.
In 2010-11, SEC football teams had total expenses averaging $22,209,165.00. Thus, there is room to argue that if Missouri and Texas A&M want to be competitive within the conference in football, they will need to raise their expenditures to this level. It is unknown what SEC football teams expended on football during the 2011-12 season, as that data is not available yet.
To see how Missouri and Texas A&M’s football teams stacked up financially in 2010-11 in the Big 12, click here. (NOTE: The PDF chart was created using the expense amount initially reported by Missouri to the Department of Education. This chart will be updated shortly).
To see how Missouri and Texas A&M’s football teams stacked up financially in 2010-11 throughout the NCAA, click here.
51-100 Most Profitable FBS Football and Basketball Programs
Over the past week, we’ve posted financials for every football and men’s basketball program in the FBS, with the exception of the military academies. Here are the links: ACC, Big XII, Big East, C-USA, Big Ten, MAC, Pac-12, SEC, Sun Belt, Mountain West and WAC. Yesterday we presented the Top 50 most profitable FBS football and men’s basketball programs.
Below you will find the 51-100 most profitable programs. The “% Invested” column shows how much of the specific sport’s revenue goes back into that specific sport.
Please read below before viewing the financials.
About the data: All of the data is from reports each school files with the US Department of Education. It is the only available data for both public and private universities. However, there can be variances in how each school chooses to report data. For example, each school can decide for itself whether to break out television revenue by sport or leave it in a generic revenue category, which causes variances. After speaking with dozens of schools the most common practice appears to be attributing the majority of television revenue to football and a portion to basketball. The most common split is 65/35.
There are also variances from year-to-year, so be careful when comparing this data to last year’s data. For example, Florida State’s football program showed a gain of approximately $14 million from ’09-’10 to ’10-’11. When contacted for comment FSU explained that in ’10-’11 they broke out contributions by sport, which they hadn’t done previously.
Although far from perfect, this data is the only available data for all Division I programs (with the exception of the military academies). We just want to make you aware of the possible variances and will let you draw your own conclusions.
Please note: we did not rank non-AQ schools last year, so those schools will not show a rank for ’09-’10.
| 10-11 Rank | 09-10 Rank | School | 10-11 Revenue | 10-11 Expenses | 10-11 Profit | % Invested |
| 51 | 62 | Kansas State (Football) | $19,731,620 | $10,867,052 | $8,864,568 | 55.07% |
| 52 | 56 | Northwestern Univ. (Football) | $28,198,769 | $19,430,675 | $8,768,094 | 68.91% |
| 53 | 60 | University of Texas (Basketball) | $16,437,705 | $8,195,360 | $8,242,345 | 49.86% |
| 54 | 45 | Indiana Univ. (Football) | $24,230,741 | $16,112,930 | $8,117,811 | 66.50% |
| 55 | 40 | Univ of Arizona (Football) | $25,448,212 | $17,965,169 | $7,483,043 | 70.60% |
| 56 | 50 | Michigan St. (Basketball) | $16,479,208 | $9,263,945 | $7,215,263 | 56.22% |
| 57 | 44 | Georgia Tech (Football) | $22,557,020 | $15,463,243 | $7,093,777 | 68.55% |
| 58 | 66 | Univ of California, Berkeley (Football) | $24,328,784 | $17,398,649 | $6,930,135 | 71.51% |
| 59 | 58 | Univ. of Tennessee (Basketball) | $13,785,893 | $6,863,233 | $6,922,660 | 49.78% |
| 60 | 24 | West Virginia University (Football) | $19,960,732 | $13,230,226 | $6,730,506 | 66.28% |
| 61 | 100 | Oklahoma State (Basketball) | $12,262,241 | $5,658,993 | $6,603,248 | 46.15% |
| 62 | 52 | North Carolina State (Basketball) | $10,490,494 | $3,947,120 | $6,543,374 | 37.63% |
| 63 | 67 | Northwestern (Basketball) | $11,018,639 | $4,577,278 | $6,441,361 | 41.54% |
| 64 | 54 | University of Pittsburgh (Basketball) | $13,574,317 | $7,181,490 | $6,392,827 | 52.90% |
| 65 | UNLV (Basketball) | $10,123,168 | $3,806,508 | $6,316,660 | 37.60% | |
| 66 | 71 | Univ. of Kentucky (Basketball) | $18,557,243 | $12,355,375 | $6,201,868 | 66.58% |
| 67 | 128 | Vanderbilt Univ. (Football) | $22,455,110 | $16,507,997 | $5,947,113 | 73.52% |
| 68 | 63 | Purdue Univ. (Football) | $18,359,413 | $12,420,742 | $5,938,671 | 67.65% |
| 69 | 81 | University of Missouri (Basketball) | $11,084,210 | $5,391,400 | $5,692,810 | 48.64% |
| 70 | 68 | Marquette (Basketball) | $15,568,569 | $10,348,303 | $5,220,266 | 66.47% |
| 71 | Boise State (Football) | $12,950,605 | $7,834,316 | $5,116,289 | 60.49% | |
| 72 | 55 | Univ of California, Los Angeles (Football) | $23,017,910 | $17,913,658 | $5,104,252 | 77.82% |
| 73 | 47 | Univ. of Arkansas (Basketball) | $14,608,513 | $9,548,135 | $5,060,378 | 65.36% |
| 74 | 65 | Univ of California, Los Angeles (Basketball) | $11,621,364 | $6,702,818 | $4,918,546 | 57.68% |
| 75 | 69 | Maryland (Basketball) | $10,965,638 | $6,062,659 | $4,902,979 | 55.29% |
| 76 | BYU (Football) | $15,664,108 | $10,764,814 | $4,899,294 | 68.72% | |
| 77 | 64 | Univ of Washington (Basketball) | $10,474,040 | $5,702,562 | $4,771,478 | 54.44% |
| 78 | 80 | Penn St. (Basketball) | $9,485,900 | $4,851,361 | $4,634,539 | 51.14% |
| 79 | 78 | University of South Florida (Football) | $17,017,821 | $12,657,523 | $4,360,298 | 74.38% |
| 80 | 79 | Univ. of Alabama (Basketball) | $11,016,184 | $6,819,080 | $4,197,104 | 61.90% |
| 81 | 98 | Purdue (Basketball) | $9,396,189 | $5,204,365 | $4,191,824 | 55.39% |
| 82 | 89 | Michigan (Basketball) | $9,154,689 | $5,102,129 | $4,052,560 | 55.73% |
| 83 | 70 | Georgia Tech (Basketball) | $8,543,269 | $4,625,109 | $3,918,160 | 54.14% |
| 84 | 35 | University of Missouri (Football) | $24,694,807 | $20,806,778 | $3,888,029 | 84.26% |
| 85 | 82 | Stanford University (Football) | $19,521,092 | $15,888,069 | $3,633,023 | 81.39% |
| 86 | 86 | Washington State (Football) | $12,741,698 | $9,193,553 | $3,548,145 | 72.15% |
| 87 | 75 | Wake Forest (Basketball) | $8,261,666 | $4,773,315 | $3,488,351 | 57.78% |
| 88 | 84 | Univ. of Georgia (Basketball) | $8,718,363 | $5,253,434 | $3,464,929 | 60.26% |
| 89 | 94 | Texas A&M (Basketball) | $9,786,655 | $6,340,072 | $3,446,583 | 64.78% |
| 90 | 111 | Duke University (Football) | $18,243,589 | $14,837,825 | $3,405,764 | 81.33% |
| 91 | 95 | Clemson (Basketball) | $7,705,630 | $4,417,665 | $3,287,965 | 57.33% |
| 92 | 72 | Univ. of South Carolina (Basketball) | $7,849,818 | $4,618,566 | $3,231,252 | 58.84% |
| 93 | Army (Football) | $8,839,775 | $5,620,774 | $3,219,001 | 63.59% | |
| 94 | 77 | Virginia Tech (Basketball) | $7,858,609 | $4,782,477 | $3,076,132 | 60.86% |
| 95 | Cal State – Fresno (Football) | $10,059,929 | $7,040,523 | $3,019,406 | 69.99% | |
| 96 | Wyoming (Football) | $8,677,505 | $5,770,034 | $2,907,471 | 66.49% | |
| 97 | 88 | Univ. of Mississippi (Basketball) | $7,175,223 | $4,270,576 | $2,904,647 | 59.52% |
| 98 | 85 | Mississippi State Univ. (Basketball) | $6,914,565 | $4,052,623 | $2,861,942 | 58.61% |
| 99 | Utah (Basketball) | $6,220,172 | $3,516,570 | $2,703,602 | 56.53% | |
| 100 | 57 | West Virginia University (Basketball) | $7,968,819 | $5,333,891 | $2,634,928 | 66.93% |
We’ve also created a comprehensive chart with comparisons to ’09-’10: Top 51-100 Most Profitable Programs 10-11 (.pdf)
Top 50 Most Profitable FBS Football and Men’s Basketball Programs
Over the past week, we’ve posted financials for every football and men’s basketball program in the FBS, with the exception of the military academies. Here are the links: ACC, Big XII, Big East, C-USA, Big Ten, MAC, Pac-12, SEC, Sun Belt, Mountain West and WAC.
Below you will find the top 50 most profitable programs. We’ll post 51-100 later today. The “% Invested” column shows how much of the specific sport’s revenue goes back into that specific sport.
Please read below before viewing the financials.
About the data: All of the data is from reports each school files with the US Department of Education. It is the only available data for both public and private universities. However, there can be variances in how each school chooses to report data. For example, each school can decide for itself whether to break out television revenue by sport or leave it in a generic revenue category, which causes variances. After speaking with dozens of schools the most common practice appears to be attributing the majority of television revenue to football and a portion to basketball. The most common split is 65/35.
There are also variances from year-to-year, so be careful when comparing this data to last year’s data. For example, Florida State’s football program showed a gain of approximately $14 million from ’09-’10 to ’10-’11. When contacted for comment FSU explained that in ’10-’11 they broke out contributions by sport, which they hadn’t done previously.
Although far from perfect, this data is the only available data for all Division I programs (with the exception of the military academies). We just want to make you aware of the possible variances and will let you draw your own conclusions.
| 10-11 Rank | 09-10 Rank | School | 10-11 Revenue | 10-11 Expenses | 10-11 Profit |
| 1 | 1 | University of Texas (Football) | $95,749,684 | $24,507,352 | $71,242,332 |
| 2 | 3 | Penn State Univ. (Football) | $72,747,734 | $19,519,288 | $53,228,446 |
| 3 | 2 | Univ. of Georgia (Football) | $74,888,175 | $22,036,338 | $52,851,837 |
| 4 | 6 | Louisiana State Univ. (Football) | $68,510,141 | $21,492,741 | $47,017,400 |
| 5 | 4 | Univ. of Michigan (Football) | $70,300,676 | $23,552,233 | $46,748,443 |
| 6 | 5 | Univ. of Florida (Football) | $72,807,236 | $26,263,539 | $46,543,697 |
| 7 | 7 | Univ. of Alabama (Football) | $76,801,800 | $31,580,059 | $45,221,741 |
| 8 | 12 | Notre Dame (Football) | $68,782,560 | $25,164,887 | $43,617,673 |
| 9 | 8 | Univ. of Tennessee (Football) | $56,831,514 | $19,135,650 | $37,695,864 |
| 10 | 9 | Auburn Univ. (Football) | $76,227,804 | $39,069,676 | $37,158,128 |
| 11 | 17 | Univ. of Arkansas (Football) | $61,131,707 | $24,059,193 | $37,072,514 |
| 12 | 10 | University of Oklahoma (Football) | $58,811,324 | $23,191,402 | $35,619,922 |
| 13 | 13 | University of Nebraska (Football) | $54,712,406 | $20,147,302 | $34,565,104 |
| 14 | 18 | Texas A&M (Football) | $45,414,074 | $15,560,216 | $29,853,858 |
| 15 | 16 | Michigan State Univ. (Football) | $45,040,778 | $17,420,499 | $27,620,279 |
| 16 | 21 | University of Louisville (Basketball) | $40,887,938 | $13,336,649 | $27,551,289 |
| 17 | 14 | Ohio State Univ. (Football) | $60,837,342 | $34,373,844 | $26,463,498 |
| 18 | 15 | Univ. of Iowa (Football) | $44,506,832 | $20,510,807 | $23,996,025 |
| 19 | 11 | Univ. of South Carolina (Football) | $45,464,058 | $22,482,479 | $22,981,579 |
| 20 | 19 | Univ. of Kentucky (Football) | $34,020,276 | $14,352,110 | $19,668,166 |
| 21 | 22 | Univ. of Wisconsin (Football) | $43,296,599 | $23,662,925 | $19,633,674 |
| 22 | 20 | Oklahoma State (Football) | $33,213,396 | $13,787,271 | $19,426,125 |
| 23 | 27 | Univ of Washington (Football) | $39,405,237 | $21,306,380 | $18,098,857 |
| 24 | 99 | Florida State Univ. (Football) | $35,870,789 | $18,689,809 | $17,180,980 |
| 25 | 30 | Univ. of Illinois (Football) | $28,079,694 | $12,910,507 | $15,169,187 |
| 26 | 29 | Duke (Basketball) | $28,917,329 | $13,819,529 | $15,097,800 |
| 27 | 26 | Virginia Tech (Football) | $35,083,799 | $20,009,657 | $15,074,142 |
| 28 | 33 | Univ of Arizona (Basketball) | $21,209,980 | $6,918,239 | $14,291,741 |
| 29 | 28 | Clemson Univ. (Football) | $31,730,042 | $17,992,943 | $13,737,099 |
| 30 | 25 | Univ. of Minnesota (Football) | $30,524,945 | $16,985,182 | $13,539,763 |
| 31 | 31 | North Carolina (Basketball) | $19,672,012 | $6,510,942 | $13,161,070 |
| 32 | 34 | Ohio St. (Basketball) | $17,020,807 | $5,251,724 | $11,769,083 |
| 33 | 48 | Univ of Southern California (Football) | $31,148,724 | $19,423,723 | $11,725,001 |
| 34 | 41 | Syracuse University (Basketball) | $19,017,231 | $7,532,455 | $11,484,776 |
| 35 | 51 | Univ. of North Carolina (Football) | $26,385,760 | $15,050,721 | $11,335,039 |
| 36 | 37 | Arizona State (Football) | $27,842,879 | $16,564,598 | $11,278,281 |
| 37 | 76 | Mississippi State Univ. (Football) | $22,575,985 | $11,766,024 | $10,809,961 |
| 38 | 38 | Texas Tech (Football) | $26,569,287 | $15,788,943 | $10,780,344 |
| 39 | 23 | Univ. of Mississippi (Football) | $28,515,471 | $17,764,174 | $10,751,297 |
| 40 | 36 | North Carolina State (Football) | $21,856,742 | $11,329,718 | $10,527,024 |
| 41 | 90 | University of Louisville (Football) | $25,658,653 | $15,582,161 | $10,076,492 |
| 42 | 42 | Wisconsin (Basketball) | $16,353,313 | $6,394,547 | $9,958,766 |
| 43 | 46 | Indiana (Basketball) | $17,804,586 | $7,945,102 | $9,859,484 |
| 44 | Utah (Football) | $21,235,202 | $11,426,280 | $9,808,922 | |
| 45 | 43 | Illinois (Basketball) | $15,408,818 | $5,630,297 | $9,778,521 |
| 46 | 32 | University of Colorado (Football) | $25,955,136 | $16,308,544 | $9,646,592 |
| 47 | 49 | Minnesota (Basketball) | $15,141,713 | $5,549,650 | $9,592,063 |
| 48 | 39 | Univ of Oregon (Football) | $27,713,278 | $18,198,476 | $9,514,802 |
| 49 | 53 | Oregon State (Football) | $21,690,794 | $12,282,221 | $9,408,573 |
| 50 | 61 | Iowa State (Football) | $21,862,535 | $12,513,317 | $9,349,218 |
We’ve also created a comprehensive chart with comparisons to ’09-’10: Top 50 Most Profitable Programs ’10-’11 (.pdf)
