Where B1G athletic departments rank in spending, profit, pay
- Thread starter track71
- Start date
my question is, how does Ohio state and Michigan get to 46 and 47 million in football ticket sales with roughly double the stadium size of RU, and RU has 8 mill and change in the same category?
.....are these two schools including sales of concessions and clothing, etc....or are they charging $1,000 per game?.....or is the "seat gift" required for most season ticket holders really big?
.
Football ticket sales
1. Ohio State - $47,091,663
2. Michigan - $46,108,503
3. Nebraska - $34,121,726
4. Iowa - $21,042,903
5. Michigan State - $17,671,810
6. Minnesota - $14,024,130
7. Purdue - $9,628,594
8. Illinois - $9,236,799
9. Rutgers - $8,767,194
10. Indiana - $6,585,484
11. Maryland - $6,392,258
.....are these two schools including sales of concessions and clothing, etc....or are they charging $1,000 per game?.....or is the "seat gift" required for most season ticket holders really big?
.
Football ticket sales
1. Ohio State - $47,091,663
2. Michigan - $46,108,503
3. Nebraska - $34,121,726
4. Iowa - $21,042,903
5. Michigan State - $17,671,810
6. Minnesota - $14,024,130
7. Purdue - $9,628,594
8. Illinois - $9,236,799
9. Rutgers - $8,767,194
10. Indiana - $6,585,484
11. Maryland - $6,392,258
Can't really tell from the article. If Ohio St charges an average of $50 a ticket, and averages 100, 000 fans for 7 home games, that would work out to $35 million. If this is counting booster club donations for the seats, then I could see $46 million. At Clemson, a 50-yard line season ticket is roughly $350 for the actual seat, and $10, 000 to IPTAY, so that's my guess as to how they get that figure.
The question isn't why OSU's ticket revenue is so high, it is why is Rutgers' ticket revenue so low.
OSU's numbers work out to an average ticket price of $64 per game, over 7 games and 104,993 avg attendance last year.
Rutgers' numbers work out to an average ticket price of $27 per game, over 7 games and 46,549 avg attendance last year. Granted it was in the AAC, so attendance and prices were somewhat lower. But I don't know how they get to $27 average ticket price.
OSU's numbers work out to an average ticket price of $64 per game, over 7 games and 104,993 avg attendance last year.
Rutgers' numbers work out to an average ticket price of $27 per game, over 7 games and 46,549 avg attendance last year. Granted it was in the AAC, so attendance and prices were somewhat lower. But I don't know how they get to $27 average ticket price.
When doing the math start with average attendance but then take out 12K or so for students and others "give away" tickets. And remember faculty and recent grads have a lower price point as well (although those are smaller numbers)
Possibly their students do not get in for free or cheaply.....but OSU and Michigan must have some reduced ticket categories one would think.....still a staggering difference at first glance......you would guess their sales figures would be a little more than double
The numbers are from the NCAA Annual Financial Report schools are required to file every year.
Here is what the NCAA defines that as:
Include revenue received for sales of admissions to athletics events. Include ticket sales to the public, faculty and students, and money received for shipping and handling of tickets. Do not include ticket sales for conference and national tournaments that are pass-through transactions. Report amounts in excess of a ticket's face value paid by ticket purchasers (for example, to obtain preferential seating) in Category 4 (Contributions).
Concessions and parking are a different category.
Here is a link to Penn State's for 2014. It shows you all the categories they are required to report. Penn State football ticket sales were $38,006,892.
http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/psu/genrel/auto_pdf/2014-15/misc_non_event/2013-14_NCAA_Annual_Report.pdf
When it comes to profit. How many Big Ten schools have costs for facilities maintenance, expansion, debt under the Athletic budget vs under the schools general facilities budget? Rutgers profit from football is low because between $3 to $4 million of income is going directly to pay down expansion bonds.
Not all schools put athletic facilities expenses directly under the Athletics budget but rather under the general funds expenses.
Not all schools put athletic facilities expenses directly under the Athletics budget but rather under the general funds expenses.
Very interesting. Thanks to the OP for posting. Several things there worthy of comment.
Perhaps the most interesting stat of all was the one for student athletic fees, which showed UMd and RU at the top. That must be indicative of university policy (it's been that way at RU for decades) in which students can get free tickets to games as a result of having paid the athletic fee. Elsewhere, students must have to purchase their seats, though it would seem logical that student tickets cost less than those going to the general public. I recall paying $14 for my seasons' ticket for OSU games in 1970 + 1971. Those days are gone, LOL.
In other threads on this board, there has been much discussion about the University's subsidy to athletics and some comments there implied that the student athletic fee was part of it. Does anyone know if that is actually the case? Personally, I don't see feel that it should be - it really is a fee, not a subsidy, and like other fees, are a condition of attendance. All universities have fees that all students must pay.
The coaches salaries are unbelievably high and seem way out of line with societal norms. People doing much more important work than coaches do are earning far, far less for their efforts. And the nature of the multi-year contracts present a real financial danger to educational institutions that ultimately could prove harmful to intercollegiate sports.
The figures for the conference payouts noted (ACC) and (AAC) for UMd and RU respectively. Those were obviously for the 2013-14 academic year. I know that RU won't be getting a full share for 6 years but does anyone understand exactly how this will work? My question basically is: Will RU get a fixed % of the full share for 2014-15, say 50%? If so, then the actual $ payout would increase if B1G revenues (TV, bowls, tournaments, etc.) increase, which they should given the fact that OSU played in an extra, very high paying game for the NC. Or conversely, is RU's payout fixed at a certain $ amount that doesn't change if conference revenues go up?
Hopefully, those in the know will provide some insights to these questions. Thanks in advance.
Perhaps the most interesting stat of all was the one for student athletic fees, which showed UMd and RU at the top. That must be indicative of university policy (it's been that way at RU for decades) in which students can get free tickets to games as a result of having paid the athletic fee. Elsewhere, students must have to purchase their seats, though it would seem logical that student tickets cost less than those going to the general public. I recall paying $14 for my seasons' ticket for OSU games in 1970 + 1971. Those days are gone, LOL.
In other threads on this board, there has been much discussion about the University's subsidy to athletics and some comments there implied that the student athletic fee was part of it. Does anyone know if that is actually the case? Personally, I don't see feel that it should be - it really is a fee, not a subsidy, and like other fees, are a condition of attendance. All universities have fees that all students must pay.
The coaches salaries are unbelievably high and seem way out of line with societal norms. People doing much more important work than coaches do are earning far, far less for their efforts. And the nature of the multi-year contracts present a real financial danger to educational institutions that ultimately could prove harmful to intercollegiate sports.
The figures for the conference payouts noted (ACC) and (AAC) for UMd and RU respectively. Those were obviously for the 2013-14 academic year. I know that RU won't be getting a full share for 6 years but does anyone understand exactly how this will work? My question basically is: Will RU get a fixed % of the full share for 2014-15, say 50%? If so, then the actual $ payout would increase if B1G revenues (TV, bowls, tournaments, etc.) increase, which they should given the fact that OSU played in an extra, very high paying game for the NC. Or conversely, is RU's payout fixed at a certain $ amount that doesn't change if conference revenues go up?
Hopefully, those in the know will provide some insights to these questions. Thanks in advance.
RU Students don't get in for "free." Their admission is covered by student fees that should go to the athletic department for tickets used. Knowing RU's flaky accounting, however, I would not be surprised if the student ticket fee revenue is not credited to the Athletic department.
The NCAA counts them as different items. However many articles will lump the two together. If some would make a request for Rutgers' Annual report many of the questions could be answered.
Here the NCAA categories:
Student Fees
Include student fees assessed and restricted for support of intercollegiate athletics.
Direct State or Other Government
Support.
Include state, municipal, federal and other government appropriations made in support of the operations of intercollegiate athletics. This amount includes funding specifically earmarked to the athletics department by government agencies for which the institution has no discretion to reallocate. Any state or other government support appropriated to the university, for which the university determines the dollar allocation to the athletics department shall be reported in Direct Institutional Support (item 7).
Direct Institutional Support.
Include student fees assessed and restricted for support of intercollegiate athletics.
Indirect Institutional Support
Include value of facilities and services provided by the institution not charged to athletics. This support may include an allocation for institutional administrative cost, facilities and maintenance, grounds and field maintenance, security, risk management, utilities, depreciation and debt service. If your institution does not currently track indirect institutional support, consult your business office for a reasonable allocation. If counted here, include offsetting expenditure equal in value in Expense Category 32 (Indirect Facilities and Administrative Support).
Basketball is a very cheap sport to run, and you do get TV money, plus shared conference money from the tournament (I think, anyway).
It;s not easy for basketball to lose money. Unless it's women's and you pay your coach as if she fills the arena and has 13 national championships.
It;s not easy for basketball to lose money. Unless it's women's and you pay your coach as if she fills the arena and has 13 national championships.
I couldn't tell from the article linked in the OP if the attendance figures took this into account, but for those who don't know the B1G partially splits gate receipts among all its members.
http://thegazette.com/2013/10/25/sharing-gate-revenue-unique-vital-to-b1g-football
http://thegazette.com/2013/10/25/sharing-gate-revenue-unique-vital-to-b1g-football
But just like in football, schools are suppose to use a surplus to help fund their other 20 plus varsity sports that don't have revenue streams.
Most Big Ten programs have been bringing in mega $$$ for decades...as prior to this year, Big Ten lead the nation in hoop attendance for 38 years...and with some of those teams like Wisconsin, Ohio State, Illinois, etc...that have either built new arenas or renovated old ones to add a lot more premium seating and to bring in even more $$$.
RU enjoyed a nice uptick in hoop attendance this year, mostly from local Big Ten fans who were able to see their schools play in their first ever conf game in the NYC metro area but even with that uptick, RU is so far behind the rest of the conf.
In 2013-2014, RU averaged 4,425 fans per game.
In 2014-2015, RU averaged 5,770 fans per game.
11 out of the 14 Big Ten teams averaged at least 11,523 fans per game...while the bottom 3 were:
Penn State: 8,044
Northwestern: 6.914
Rutgers: 5,770
That is a big part of the subsidy we are always reminded of.
Best example of flaky RU accounting was they counted money generated in the Stadium by Dining Services as part of the subsidy. I can't imagine that happened anywhere else. Not to mention the paltry amount returned by Dining Services. It was more accurate to say the Athletic Department was subsidizing Dining Services.
This post was edited on 3/25 10:20 AM by srru86
Similar threads
