The average in Conference USA is predictably smaller than the AQ conferences. In fact, it’s half that of the Big East, who came in the lowest of the AQs. Here’s the breakdown by school:
|
Football Revenue |
University of Central Florida |
$15,173,200.00 |
SMU |
$12,493,293.00 |
Rice University |
$12,355,180.00 |
University of Memphis |
$11,557,329.00 |
East Carolina University |
$9,627,578.00 |
UTEP |
$9,549,083.00 |
University of Houston |
$7,719,733.00 |
Marshall University |
$7,462,672.00 |
Univ. of Alabama – B’ham |
$6,811,742.00 |
Tulane University |
$6,686,956.00 |
University of Tulsa |
$6,340,835.00 |
University of Southern Miss. |
$5,605,441.00 |
University of Central Florida, who would #25 in the final BCS standings in 2010, brought in revenue exceeding quite a few AQ schools: Maryland ($11,540,368), Wake Forest (10,227,922), Vanderbilt ($14152,061), Baylor ($14,355,322), UCONN ($14,400,371) and Cincinnati ($13,325,304). UCF also saw more revenue from football than Utah ($14,690,174), who is moving into the Pac-10 this year.
One reason for that revenue could be that UCF is the
second largest university in the country behind Arizona State. Except, it doesn’t seem to be ticket sales driving UCF to the top of the pack.
UCF reported just $5,953,071 in ticket sales for 2009-2010 (for all sports, not just football). Meanwhile, Memphis, who comes in fourth in revenue in the conference, reported $9,087,159 in ticket sales. East Carolina, who had the fifth largest revenues, had ticket sales totaling $6,138,102.
UCF doesn’t have the largest football stadium in C-USA either. In fact, it’s about average, falling behind UAB, ECU, Memphis, Rice, UTEP and Tulane.
So, where is UCF’s football revenue coming from? As you’ll see below, the athletic department receives an amount much higher than the other athletic department profit leaders from student fees. However, it’s unlikely any of that is attributed to football. The more likely story is in alumni contributions and money derived from royalties, licensing and advertising, all of which could have significant portions attributed to football and which would understandably be higher at the nation’s second largest university.
UCF reported using $5.3 million in alumni contributions during the 2009-2010 school year. Comparatively, UAB showed just $3.1 million and East Carolina came in at $4.4 million. An Associate AD at Georgia Tech
told me previously that about 70% of the contributions they receive are sport-specific. Assuming that’s the norm for most schools, I think it’s safe to say a large percentage of those restricted contributions are for football and could be a reason why UCF is leading in football revenue.
The other reason could be fees received from licensing, royalties, advertising and sponsorship. UCF reported receiving $3.3 million in this category for the 2009-2010 school year. By comparison, UAB showed $805,000, East Carolina $1.0 million and Memphis $2.2 million.
Although UCF is leading the pack in terms of revenue, I wonder if its fans will be disappointed to see it is spending below average in the conference on football:
|
Football Expenses |
SMU |
$12,493,293.00 |
Rice University |
$12,355,180.00 |
University of Memphis |
$11,557,329.00 |
University of Tulsa |
$9,420,693.00 |
East Carolina University |
$8,940,958.00 |
University of Central Florida |
$8,507,856.00 |
University of Houston |
$8,194,333.00 |
UTEP |
$7,586,702.00 |
Marshall University |
$7,462,672.00 |
Tulane University |
$6,686,956.00 |
Univ. of Alabama – B’ham |
$6,518,199.00 |
University of Southern Miss. |
$5,605,441.00 |
Spending hasn’t necessarily impacted the results on the field, however, as UCF finished in the Top 25 in the final BCS standings for 2010. Once the numbers are available, it’ll be interesting to see if UCF increased spending for the 2010-2011 school year.
It’s tough to look back and forth between the two charts, so maybe you missed the really interesting number here: Tulsa’s spending. It’s much higher than its revenue for football. We saw at most AQ schools that football provided a profit that funded many other sports, but that is not the case in the non-AQ conferences.
|
Football Profit |
University of Central Florida |
$6,665,344.00 |
UTEP |
$1,962,381.00 |
East Carolina University |
$686,620.00 |
Univ. of Alabama – B’ham |
$293,543.00 |
Marshall University |
$0.00 |
University of Memphis |
$0.00 |
University of Southern Miss. |
$0.00 |
Rice University |
$0.00 |
SMU |
$0.00 |
Tulane University |
$0.00 |
University of Houston |
-$474,600.00 |
University of Tulsa |
-$3,079,858.00 |
Back to Tulsa. I spoke with Athletic Director Bubba Cunningham about why his football program appears to be operating at a $3 million deficit. He attributed it to the non-standardized accounting that goes on when schools report to the Department of Education (see my note at the end for more on reporting methods). Cunningham told me that Tulsa reports grants-in-aid from the university as revenue unallocated by sport, whereas other universities may report it as it applies to each sport, which would increase their football revenue. He pointed out this revenue is included in the over $11 million Tulsa reported to the Department of Education as non-allocated revenue.
It’s not just Tulsa not showing a profit, however. In fact, only four schools are turning a profit on football in C-USA (at least by this set of data). By comparison, only five schools in all six AQ conferences failed to show a profit, with just two operating at a deficit.
Knowing that, it’s surprising to see any C-USA teams turning a profit in the athletic department, but keep in mind that these overall profit numbers include student fees and direct institutional support:
|
Athletic Dept Profit |
East Carolina University |
$1,566,072.00 |
Univ. of Alabama – B’ham |
$759,608.00 |
UTEP |
$79,696.00 |
University of Central Florida |
$61,915.00 |
Marshall University |
$0.00 |
University of Memphis |
$0.00 |
University of Southern Miss. |
$0.00 |
University of Houston |
$0.00 |
Rice University |
$0.00 |
SMU |
$0.00 |
Tulane University |
$0.00 |
University of Tulsa |
$0.00 |
What do those turning a profit all have in common? Well, they’re the same four schools who turned profit in football. What else do they all have? Multiple millions in student fees. The
highest we saw in the AQ conferences was $13,026,289 at University of South Florida. The team who came in tenth was North Carolina State at $4,200,610.
Central Florida would exceed the leader from the AQs, South Florida, at a whopping $17,486,918, no doubt a product of being the second largest university in the country. However, it’s not just UCF relying on student fees to turn a profit in C-USA. Here are the numbers for the other three programs turning a profit in the athletic department: $10,441,783 (ECU), 3,454,483 (UAB), and 4,189,751 (UTEP). All are way above the average for AQs and Central Florida an ECU would make it into the top ten (not considering schools from other non-AQ conferences).
I’m interested to hear what you take from all these numbers. Are you viewing them in a vacuum or are you comparing them to what we saw in the AQs?
You can view my full financial charts for each conference I’ve covered
here.
Pingback: How Does the Mid-American Conference Stack Up Financially? «
Pingback: Appearance on WTSP re: USF Student Fees «
Pingback: Who’s Making Money in the Mountain West? «
Pingback: If Pryor entered the supplemental draft would you pick him. - Page 6 - The Warpath
Pingback: Sun Belt Conference Finances «
Pingback: Boise concerns, C-USA exit fees highlight Big East expansion hurdles | CollegeFootballTalk
Pingback: Capitalism, Traditionalism, and the facade that is Texas « Conference Realignment and the Media
Pingback: Anety
Pingback: UTRGV Football Is A Really Stupid Idea - The Bench Wire