Blog Archives
BCS Payouts vs. March Madness Payouts
Quite frequently in the debate over the BCS there are comparisons to March Madness. Proponents of moving to a playoff system point to the approximately $771 million a year (beginning in 2011) March Madness generates in television alone (previously an average of $545 million). Meanwhile, the BCS bowls will generate just $125 million beginning in 2011 (previously$96.4 million per year ).
While it’s true March Madness generates more television revenue overall, that doesn’t necessarily mean more money for each athletic department. A total of $452,200,000 was distributed by the NCAA in 2010-2011, and less than half of all monies distributed went back into the athletic department with no strings attached (via the Basketball Fund). Here’s the breakdown:
Basketball Fund ($180,467,000): Monies are distributed based on a six-year rolling period. Institutions receive one unit for each appearance, not including the championship game. Each unit was worth $239,664 in 2010-2011.
Academic Enhancement ($22,461,000): Each Division I institution gets $66,000 to use for academic support service for student-athletes.
Conference Grants ($8,115,000): Each conference receives $261,744 less an agreed upon amount remitted to the regional officiating advisors program. Funds must be used to improve officiating, enhance conference compliance and enforcement programs, drug abuse education, enhancement of opportunities for ethnic minorities, and development of gambling education programs.
Sports Sponsorship Fund ($60,155,000): Each school’s share is determined based on the number of varsity sports sponsored. Points begin with the 14th sport (the number required in Division I), and $30,091 is distributed for each sport above thirteen. These monies may be directed to individual institutions or to the conference for distribution, as decided upon by each conference.
Grants-In-Aid Fund ($120,309,000): Each school’s share is determined based on the number of grants-in-aid awarded. These monies may be directed to individual institutions or to the conference for distribution, as decided upon by each conference.
Student Assistance Fund ($59,738,000): This fund also consists of the Special Assistance Fund and the Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund. For the Student Assistance Fund, all athletes are eligible to receive these funds, even if they have exhausted eligibility or no longer participate due to medical reasons. These monies are distributed to the conference who decides how to allocate. This fund is to be used to assist student-athletes with financial needs that “arise in conjunction with participation in intercollegiate athletics, enrollment in an academic curriculum or that recognize academic achievement. The Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund is distributed by conferences based on the formula used for sports sponsorship and grants-in-aid. The Special Assistance Fund is to be used to meet student-athlete financial needs of an emergency or essential nature for which other financial aid is not available.
Supplemental Support Fund ($955,000): Used to support campus-based initiatives designed to foster student-athlete academic success at eligible limited resource institutions.
At the end of the day, most conferences receive larger payouts from the BCS than March Madness when it comes to money going back into the athletic department with no strings attached. Below is a look at the payouts for the past four years. Totals in red reflect conferences who received a larger payout from basketball than football for the given year. You should also note the football payouts indicated for the non-AQ conferences (Mountain West, Mid-American, Sun Belt, C-USA and Western Athletic) are based on the payout from the BCS before the agreement between the conferences to split BCS money equally between all non-AQ conferences kicks in. Also, these numbers do not include payouts for non-BCS bowl games.
| ACC | 2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | 2009-2010 |
| Football | $18,088,675 | $18,324,992 | $18,672,725 | $19,787,058 |
| Basketball | $14,149,120 | $15,090,053 | $15,863,538 | $18,220,902 |
| Difference | $3,939,555 | $3,234,939 | $2,809,187 | $1,566,156 |
| Big 10 | 2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | 2009-2010 |
| Football | $22,588,675 | $22,824,992 | $23,172,725 | $24,287,058 |
| Basketball | $13,087,936 | $13,561,946 | $13,803,338 | $15,332,222 |
| Difference | $9,500,739 | $9,263,046 | $9,369,387 | $8,954,836 |
| Big 12 | 2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | 2009-2010 |
| Football | $18,088,675 | $22,824,992 | $23,172,725 | $19,787,058 |
| Basketball | $14,325,984 | $15,663,093 | $16,275,578 | $17,109,871 |
| Difference | $3,762,691 | $7,161,899 | $6,897,147 | $2,677,187 |
| Big East | 2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | 2009-2010 |
| Football | $18,088,675 | $18,324,992 | $18,672,725 | $19,787,058 |
| Basketball | $14,856,576 | $16,618,160 | $19,365,880 | $23,109,436 |
| Difference | $3,232,099 | $1,706,832 | ($693,155) | ($3,322,378) |
| Pac 10 | 2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | 2009-2010 |
| Football | $18,088,675 | $18,324,992 | $18,672,743 | $19,787,058 |
| Basketball | $11,849,888 | $12,606,880 | $13,391,298 | $14,665,604 |
| Difference | $6,238,787 | $5,718,112 | $5,281,445 | $5,121,454 |
| SEC | 2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | 2009-2010 |
| Football | $22,588,675 | $22,824,992 | $23,172,725 | $24,287,058 |
| Basketball | $13,087,936 | $14,708,026 | $15,657,518 | $15,110,015 |
| Difference | $9,500,739 | $8,116,966 | $7,515,207 | $9,177,043 |
| Mountain West | 2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | 2009-2010 |
| Football | $3,529,600 | $3,724,000 | $9,788,800 | $9,878,710 |
| Basketball | $3,183,552 | $4,011,280 | $4,120,399 | $3,999,710 |
| Difference | $346,048 | ($287,280) | $5,668,401 | $5,879,000 |
| Mid-American | 2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | 2009-2010 |
| Football | $1,964,800 | $1,508,000 | $2,094,400 | $2,139,355 |
| Basketball | $1,945,504 | $1,910,133 | $1,442,140 | $1,333,237 |
| Difference | $19,296 | ($402,133) | $652,260 | $806,118 |
| Sun Belt | 2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | 2009-2010 |
| Football | $1,443,200 | $2,062,000 | $1,529,600 | $1,559,570 |
| Basketball | $1,061,184 | $1,146,080 | $1,854,180 | $2,222,061 |
| Difference | $382,016 | $915,920 | ($324,580) | ($662,491) |
| C-USA | 2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | 2009-2010 |
| Football | $2,486,400 | $2,616,000 | $2,659,200 | $2,719,140 |
| Basketball | $7,782,016 | $8,213,573 | $9,064,879 | $8,507,523 |
| Difference | ($5,295,616) | ($5,597,573) | ($6,405,679) | ($5,788,383) |
| Western Athletic | 2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | 2009-2010 |
| Football | $9,008,000 | $9,170,000 | $3,224,000 | $7,798,925 |
| Basketball | $3,006,688 | $3,247,227 | $3,090,300 | $3,110,886 |
| Difference | $6,001,312 | $5,922,773 | $133,700 | $4,688,039 |
I think it’s interesting to note that AQ football conferences are bringing in more from March Madness than non-AQ football conferences. Some of that has to do with the smaller size of some of the non-AQ conferences, but it’s still rather sizeable disparity. Nonetheless, I imagine people still find the March Madness system more digestible because it is a playoff system and because payouts are based on number of appearances.
Special thanks to my research assistant Eric Heckman for helping me compile the data.
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
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 | $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
School-Specific Broadcasting Revenue
Yesterday I showed you how each conference’s television contracts compare in terms of first and second tier rights fees. I didn’t cover third tier rights because they’re so hard to track down. Some third tier rights are bundled by the conference as a whole and sold to regional networks while others are retained by each individual school and sold to a local or regional network.
What I can show you is what each school is showing as revenue for broadcasting rights (television, radio and internet) through their responses to open records requests. This is separate from the money they receive from conference distributions, so it shouldn’t include any broadcasting money received from conference-wide media rights contracts.
The chart below is every school for which I have a value and represents the 2009-2010 school year. Those not listed either showed $0 or did not have to respond to open records requests (either because they’re private or protected by state laws).
| 1 | University of North Carolina | $11,171,458.00 |
| 2 | University of Alabama | $8,444,674.00 |
| 3 | University of Kentucky | $7,743,327.00 |
| 4 | University of Florida | $7,450,000.00 |
| 5 | University of Kansas | $7,276,988.00 |
| 6 | Louisiana State University | $7,012,730.00 |
| 7 | Oklahoma State University | $6,395,000.00 |
| 8 | University of Tennessee | $6,293,621.00 |
| 9 | Oregon State University | $6,267,671.00 |
| 10 | University of Georgia | $6,231,392.00 |
| 11 | University of Wisconsin | $5,547,740.00 |
| 12 |
Auburn University
|
$4,637,605.00 |
| 13 | University of Nebraska | $4,393,529.00 |
| 14 | University of Missouri | $4,081,549.00 |
| 15 | Virginia Tech | $3,769,583.00 |
| 16 | Kansas State University | $3,263,941.00 |
| 17 | Iowa State University | $2,608,896.00 |
| 18 | North Carolina State University | $2,470,750.00 |
| 19 | Penn State University | $2,362,500.00 |
| 20 | Ohio State University | $2,329,462.00 |
| 21 | University of South Carolina | $1,829,000.00 |
| 22 | University of Connecticut | $1,749,796.00 |
| 23 | University of Louisville | $1,675,000.00 |
| 24 | University of Mississippi | $1,658,650.00 |
| 25 | University of Iowa | $1,500,000.00 |
| 26 | Georgia Tech | $1,254,876.00 |
| 27 | University of Washington | $1,248,599.00 |
| 28 |
University of Illinois
|
$1,175,065.00 |
| 29 | University of Cincinnati | $1,000,000.00 |
| 30 | University of Arkansas | $950,000.00 |
| 31 | Clemson University | $920,000.00 |
| 32 | Michigan State University | $660,025.00 |
| 33 | University of South Florida | $588,298.00 |
| 34 | Washington State University | $562,098.00 |
| 35 | West Virginia University | $404,284.00 |
| 36 | Florida State University | $349,869.00 |
| 37 | University of Texas | $338,171.00 |
| 38 | University of Minnesota | $324,000.00 |
| 39 | University of Oklahoma | $317,361.00 |
| 40 | University of Colorado | $155,528.00 |
| 41 | University of Oregon | $108,452.00 |
Because I know fans enjoy arguing about which conference is better, here are the averages for each conference (keep in mind, however, each conference has one or more schools whose numbers aren’t available):
SEC: $4,750,091
ACC: $2,848,077
Big 12: $2,620,997
Big Ten: $1,389,879
Pac-10: $1,169,546
Big East: $902,896
Don’t give these averages too much weight in terms of comparing conferences. Tough to really compare the conferences, because the third-tier rights left for each school to sell individually varies greatly by conference based on what third-tier rights have been packaged by the conference as a whole.
If you’re interested in seeing a conference-by-conference breakdown, follow the jump…
Televison Contract Breakdown
UPDATED INFO AVAILABLE: Kristi has posted an updated breakdown of the television contracts on ESPN.com (5/10/12).
My search for details on all of the current television deals for each conference in one place failed. Which must mean BusinessofCollegeSports.com needs to compile all the details in one easy-to-find place, right?
To understand the chart, you first need to understand the types of rights available. Here is a very general explanation. First-tier rights are for football and/or basketball games broadcast nationally. Second-tier rights are for football and/or basketball games not selected by the first-tier rights holder. Third-tier rights are any games not selected by the first or second-tier rights holders and rights for all sports other than football and basketball. These rights are often sold on a per-school basis (not negotiated by the conference as a whole) and often go to regional networks (like Comcast Sports Southeast, Raycom, or SportsNet New York) or can be reserved for networks like the Big Ten Network and the Texas Longhorn Network.
All that being said, deals are now being done for multiple tiers. For example, the Pac-12′s new deal with ESPN and Fox covers first and second tier rights. Meanwhile, the ACC’s new deal that begins this fall covers football, men’s and women’s basketball, Olympic sports and all conference championship games. Basically, it’s an all-inclusive package with a sublicensing arrangement in place with Raycom for games not broadcast by ESPN.
| First-Tier Rights | Term of First-Tier Rights | Second-Tier Rights | Term of Second-Tier Rights | Total Per Year Average | |
| Big 12 | $480,000,000 (ESPN) | 8 Years | $1,170,000,000 (Fox) | 13 Years | $150,000,000 |
| 08/09-15/16 | 12/13-24/25 | ||||
| Pac-12 | $3,000,000,000 (ESPN and Fox) for first and second-tier; 12 years (12/13-23/24) | $250,000,000 | |||
| ACC | $1,860,000,000 (ESPN) for all-inclusive; 12 years (11/12-22/23) | $155,000,000 | |||
| SEC | $825,000,000 (CBS) | 15 Years | $2,250,000,000 (ESPN) | 15 Years | $205,000,000 |
| 09/10-23/24 | 9/10-23/24 | ||||
| Big Ten | $1,000,000,000 (ESPN) | 10 Years | $2,800,000,000 (BTN) | 25 Years | $212,000,000 |
| 06/07-15/16 | 07/08-31/32 | ||||
| Big East | $200,000,000 (ESPN) | 6 Years | $54,000,000 (CBS) | 6 Years | $42,333,333 |
| 06/07-11/12 | 7/8-12/13 | ||||
Some caveats are in order now that you’ve seen the chart. Keep in mind that the per year number is an average. It is not necessarily what each school gets each year. A number of these contracts have escalator clauses, including the new Pac-10/12 contract. In the early years of that contract, it will be $180 million per year (or $15 million per school) and in the later years it escalates, according to Larry Scott via conference call on Wednesday following the contract’s announcement.
Though it doesn’t fit in the chart, you can’t forget the money Texas is receiving for The Longhorn Network. They’ve been guaranteed $300 million over the next 20 years from ESPN. Similarly, the amount listed above for Big Ten Network revenue is a projected amount which could grow if the network exceeds expectations.
Deals for third-tier rights are too cumbersome to cover here. Some third-tier rights are bundled by conferences and sold to regional networks while others are retained by schools and sold individually to local or regional networks. More on that in a future post.
The next contract we expect to hear about is out of the Big East. Rumors of a new deal have been circulating lately and reports have it that they were close to a deal with ESPN but considering shopping on the open market. Numbers floating around for a deal with ESPN were in the $110-130 million range per year, which would more than triple their current contract. With the SEC, ACC and Pac-12 now all on the ESPN family of stations, can the Big East get a deal with enough exposure from them?
And what will happen with the Big 12′s first-tier rights? I’ve heard a lot of comparisons between their recent deal with Fox and the Pac-10/12′s new deal announced yesterday with ESPN. I think it’s comparing apples to oranges. It should be no big shock that the Pac-10/12 would receive more money for their first tier rights than the Big 12 received for their second tier rights. Let’s wait and see what kind of dough the Big 12 commands when their first tier rights are up for grabs in the next few years.
UPDATE: I’ve posted school-specific broadcasting revenue from third tier rights sold individually here.
Special thanks to Mark Ennis of Big East Coast Bias for helping me track down the elusive value of CBS’s contract with the Big East!
Ten AQ Programs Who Rely the Most on Student Activity Fees
Here’s a little bonus for the weekend if you liked the stories on which programs rely the most heavily on student activity fees (SEC, Big Ten and Big 12 breakdown here – ACC, Pac-10 and Big East breakdown here).
The top ten schools by dollar amount:
| 1 | University of South Florida | $13,026,289.00 | 33.24% |
| 2 | University of Virginia | $12,160,103.00 | 14.86% |
| 3 | University of Connecticut | $8,626,506.00 | 14.74% |
| 4 | Rutgers University | $8,441,092.00 | 13.15% |
| 5 | Florida State University | $6,919,449.00 | 9.30% |
| 6 | University of North Carolina | $6,859,868.00 | 9.42% |
| 7 | Virginia Tech | $6,533,756.00 | 10.27% |
| 8 | Auburn University | $5,261,604.00 | 5.68% |
| 9 | Georgia Tech | $4,643,368.00 | 8.39% |
| 10 | North Carolina State University | $4,200,610.00 | 8.49% |
The top ten schools by percent of total revenue:
| 1 | University of South Florida | $13,026,289.00 | 33.24% |
| 2 | University of Virginia | $12,160,103.00 | 14.86% |
| 3 | University of Connecticut | $8,626,506.00 | 14.74% |
| 4 | Rutgers University | $8,441,092.00 | 13.15% |
| 5 | Mississippi State University | $4,000,000.00 | 10.49% |
| 6 | Virginia Tech | $6,533,756.00 | 10.27% |
| 7 | University of North Carolina | $6,859,868.00 | 9.42% |
| 8 | Florida State University | $6,919,449.00 | 9.30% |
| 9 | North Carolina State University | $4,200,610.00 | 8.49% |
| 10 | Georgia Tech | $4,643,368.00 | 8.39% |
In both cases 9 of the 10 are ACC and Big East schools. SEC programs Auburn and Mississippi State fill out the final slot in each.
As I showed you yesterday, the ACC and Big East average the least fooball revenue out of the AQ conferences. Now you see they lead in reliance on student activity fees. Coincidence? I think not.
Which Programs Rely on Student Activity Fees – Pt 2
This morning we took a look which athletic departments in the SEC, Big Ten and Big 12 rely on student activity fees. The big recipients, however, are in the ACC and Big East. Before we get to them, however, let’s take a look at the Pac-10:
| Pac 10 | Dollar Amount | Percent of Revenue |
| University of California – Los Angeles | $2,750,481.00 | 4.45% |
| University of California – Berkeley | $2,146,402.00 | 3.10% |
| Oregon State University | $2,142,702.00 | 3.85% |
| Washington State University | $1,862,522.00 | 4.73% |
| University of Oregon | $1,544,344.00 | 1.26% |
| University of Washington | $0.00 | 0.00% |
| University of Arizona | $0.00 | 0.00% |
| Arizona State University | $0.00 | 0.00% |
| Stanford University | N/A | N/A |
| University of Southern California | N/A | N/A |
In terms of average amount of student fees received, the Pac-10 comes in at $1.3 million, which puts it ahead of the Big Ten and Big 12. As we saw in the SEC, Big Ten and Big 12, top football revenue generators in the Pac-10 didn’t rely on student activity fees, namely Washington and Arizona State. In addition, Washington turned a $2.4 million profit (according to Department of Education data) without reliance on these types of fees.
Two of our top five student activity fee recipients come from the ACC, where all schools who reported receive these fees to supplement the athletic department’s budget:
| ACC | Dollar Amount | Percent of Revenue |
| University of Virginia | $12,160,103.00 | 14.86% |
| Florida State University | $6,919,449.00 | 9.30% |
| University of North Carolina | $6,859,868.00 | 9.42% |
| Virginia Tech | $6,533,756.00 | 10.27% |
| Georgia Tech | $4,643,368.00 | 8.39% |
| North Carolina State University | $4,200,610.00 | 8.49% |
| Clemson University | $1,585,556.00 | 2.75% |
| Duke University | N/A | N/A |
| University of Maryland | N/A | N/A |
| Wake Forest University | N/A | N/A |
| University of Miami | N/A | N/A |
| Boston College | N/A | N/A |
University of Virginia ranks second both in amount and percentage of total revenues. If you’ve read the piece on the finances of ACC football programs and overall athletic department finance, you’ll remember UVA led the conference in overall athletic department revenue even though they were below the midpoint for football revenue. That prompted me to call their athletic department and ask a few questions, wherein they revealed the high dollar amount they receive in student activity fees. Upon finding out that conference opponent Georgia Tech only received roughly a third of that amount, I decided to begin work on this piece.
There does seem to be some correlation between the average student activity fee received by schools within a conference and where that conference falls in terms of average football revenue. Before we look at that, however, here’s how the Big East stacks up: Read the rest of this entry
Money Not As Big in Big East Football
After writing about the football finances of the SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Pac-10 and Big 12, it’s time to turn to the Big East. The numbers are drawn from schools’ reports to the U.S. Department of Education on the state of their athletic departments’ finances for July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010. See the note at the end for more details on the data.
| Football Revenue | |
| West Virginia University | $29,467,612.00 |
| University of Pittsburgh | $22,513,336.00 |
| Rutgers University | $19,494,261.00 |
| Syracuse University | $19,152,691.00 |
| University of South Florida | $16,562,391.00 |
| University of Louisville | $15,537,276.00 |
| UCONN | $14,400,371.00 |
| University of Cincinnati | $13,325,304.00 |
Not surprisingly, money isn’t as big in Big East football as the other BCS conferences. In fact, the biggest earner doesn’t even make as much as the average in the SEC, Big Ten or Big 12:
Football Revenue:
SEC ($49.9m)
Big Ten ($40.6m)
Big 12 ($35.4m)
Pac-10 ($24.6m)
ACC ($20.9m)
Big East ($18.8)
Despite the Big East’s overall average being the lowest amongst BCS conferences, there are several schools from other conferences making less than the lowest revenue generator in the Big East: University of Maryland ($11.5m), Wake Forest ($10.2m) and Washington State ($12.8m).
We’ll see the same when we take a look at expenses, as a number of schools from other conferences spend less than the most conservative spender in the Big East. The biggest surprise to me when looking at expenditures on football was how far down the list top-earner West Virginia fell. Read the rest of this entry
ACC Football No Cash Cow
After writing about the football finances of the SEC and Big Ten, it’s the ACC’s turn. The numbers are drawn from schools’ reports to the U.S. Department of Education on the state of their athletic departments’ finances for July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010. See the note at the end for more details on the data.
I don’t think the schools on top of the revenue list in the ACC will surprise anyone:
| Football Revenue | |
| Virginia Tech | $31,155,870.00 |
| Clemson Univ. | $30,994,503.00 |
| Georgia Tech | $24,870,064.00 |
| Univ. of Miami | $24,631,029.00 |
| Univ. of North Carolina | $22,077,550.00 |
| North Carolina State | $22,018,738.00 |
| Boston College | $19,184,902.00 |
| Univ. of Virginia | $19,004,653.00 |
| Florida State Univ. | $18,958,861.00 |
| Duke Univ. | $16,109,324.00 |
| Univ. of Maryland | $11,540,368.00 |
| Wake Forest University | $10,227,922.00 |
I also don’t think you’ll be surprised to hear that the average revenue in the ACC ($21m) is less than half that of the SEC ($50m) and only slightly better than half that of the Big Ten ($41m). Read the rest of this entry
