SEC:

3. Alabama: $189,242,298
4. Georgia: $179,295,904
8. Louisiana State: $160,460,476
11. Auburn: $153,703,749
14. Texas A&M: $143,807,835
16. Florida: $139,287,811
17. Kentucky: $138,492,743
19. South Carolina: $137,094,212
20. Tennessee: $136,807,801
24. Arkansas: $124,297,763
43. Mississippi State: $101,215,909
44. Missouri: $100,202,460
47. Mississippi: $98,653,906
55. Vanderbilt: $88,849,982
Total: $1,891,412,849
Average per school: $135,100,918



Big 10:

1. Ohio State: $225,542,037
5. Michigan: $168,244,643
7. Penn State: $165,077,390
12. Iowa: $145,095,544
13. Wisconsin: $143,954,553
22. Nebraska: $128,185,606
25. Michigan State: $122,557,963
27. Indiana: $120,485,698
31. Northwestern: $112,499,222
32. Minnesota: $110,225,936
39. Illinois: $103,558,802
41. Purdue: $102,223,618
51. Maryland: $92,286,469
54. Rutgers: $89,840,305
Total: $1,829,777,786
Average per school: $130,698,413


Big 12:

2. Texas: $191,737,849
9. Oklahoma: $159,116,738
30. Texas Christian: $114,393,484
34. Kansas: $108,187,369
37. Baylor: $106,954,237
50. West Virginia: $92,884,748
52. Oklahoma State: $89,925,224
58. Kansas State: $86,441,107
62. Texas Tech: $81,233,518
64. Iowa State: $76,724,435
Total: $1,107,598,709
Average per school: $110,759,871


ACC:

10. Florida State: $155,656,855
15. Louisville: $140,867,112
26. Clemson: $122,263,031
29. Miami: $115,360,535
33. Duke: $109,785,804
35. North Carolina: $107,842,595
36. Virginia: $106,985,487
45. Pittsburgh: $99,763,877
46. Virginia Tech: $98,885,805
56. N.C. State: $88,656,510
57. Boston College: $87,003,060
59. Syracuse: $86,415,599
60. Georgia Tech: $86,407,600
61. Wake Forest: $84,486,746
Total: $1,490,380,616
Average per school: $106,455,758


6. *Notre Dame: $165,660,298


PAC 12:

18. Washington: $137,573,939
21. Stanford: $133,622,625
23. Southern Cal: $127,801,994
28. California Los Angeles: $119,391,431
38. California: $105,044,581
40. Oregon: $103,001,518
42. Arizona State: $101,855,268
48. Colorado: $95,592,693
49. Arizona: $93,492,302
53. Utah: $89,893,359
63. Oregon State: $77,034,669
65. Washington State: $69,307,483
Total: $1,253,611,862
Average per school: $104,467,655

*Note: Only the SEC saw an increase over 2018-19 and that was slight. All other P conferences lost significant revenue year over year. I left 2018-19's Equity in Athletics numbers up for you to make the comparisons. It is also pinned. These numbers are also from that source.

Fascinating how ACC schools experienced the start of the pandemic differently.

Some schools, generally those with higher starting revenues, reported a lot less money…
FSU went from $198M in FY2019 to $156M in FY2020 revenues
Louisville went from $149M to $141M
Miami went from $127M to $115M
Duke went from $116M to $110M
Syracuse went from $100M to $86M

While schools with historically lower revenues, still experienced healthy increases…
Wake revenues went from $77M in FY2019 to $85M in FY2020
Georgia Tech revenues went from $80M to $86M
BC revenues increased from $83M to $87M
Virginia Tech revenues went from $84M to $99M

The other schools (Clemson, NC State, Pitt, UNC and UVa) had modest changes in revenues.

In terms of revenue generation, the ACC became very egalitarian. Overall conference revenue decreased, but the smaller programs kept growing their revenues.

(06-25-2021 03:38 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Fascinating how ACC schools experienced the start of the pandemic differently.

Some schools, generally those with higher starting revenues, reported a lot less money…
FSU went from $198M in FY2019 to $156M in FY2020 revenues
Louisville went from $149M to $141M
Miami went from $127M to $115M
Duke went from $116M to $110M
Syracuse went from $100M to $86M

While schools with historically lower revenues, still experienced healthy increases…
Wake revenues went from $77M in FY2019 to $85M in FY2020
Georgia Tech revenues went from $80M to $86M
BC revenues increased from $83M to $87M
Virginia Tech revenues went from $84M to $99M

The other schools (Clemson, NC State, Pitt, UNC and UVa) had modest changes in revenues.

In terms of revenue generation, the ACC became very egalitarian. Overall conference revenue decreased, but the smaller programs kept growing their revenues.

That IS odd, isn't it?

I analyzed the last five years of Equity in Athletics reported revenue.
Average P5 revenue:
2015-16 @ $102M
2016-17 @ $109M
2017-18 @ $118M
2018-19 @ $121M
2019-20 @ $119M

Cumulative P5 revenue growth @ 16% (ACC 23%, BIG 21%, PAC 17%, SEC 11% and B12 9%). Note that comparisons of average conference payouts growth may be skewed depending on contract bowls in a given year.

Putting a Bell-curve on athletic department revenue generators, programs can be classified as:
A) Outstanding (>2 std dev above P5 mean) - Texas and Ohio State
B) Strong (1-2 sd above) - Alabama, Michigan, Georgia, Florida State, Oklahoma, Penn State, LSU, Notre Dame and Auburn
C) Above Average (<1 sd above) - Texas A&M, Florida, Wisconsin, Tennessee, South Carolina, Iowa, Louisville, Arkansas, Kentucky, Stanford, Washington, Nebraska, Kansas, USC, UCLA and Minnesota
D) Below Average (<1 sd below) - Indiana, Clemson, Michigan State, TCU, Duke, Arizona State, Virginia, Miami, Oregon, Ole Miss, North Carolina, Baylor, Maryland, Purdue, Northwestern, West Virginia, Missouri, California, Illinois, Mississippi State, Arizona, Colorado, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma State, NC State, Kansas State, Virginia Tech and Oregon State
E) Weak (1-2 sd below) - Vanderbilt, Utah, Rutgers, Texas Tech, Boston College, Georgia Tech, Iowa State, Washington State and Wake Forest
F) Failing (>2 sd below mean) - none

(07-05-2021 04:42 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  I analyzed the last five years of Equity in Athletics reported revenue.
Average P5 revenue:
2015-16 @ $102M
2016-17 @ $109M
2017-18 @ $118M
2018-19 @ $121M
2019-20 @ $119M

Cumulative P5 revenue growth @ 16% (ACC 23%, BIG 21%, PAC 17%, SEC 11% and B12 9%). Note that comparisons of average conference payouts growth may be skewed depending on contract bowls in a given year.

Putting a Bell-curve on athletic department revenue generators, programs can be classified as:
A) Outstanding (>2 std dev above P5 mean) - Texas and Ohio State
B) Strong (1-2 sd above) - Alabama, Michigan, Georgia, Florida State, Oklahoma, Penn State, LSU, Notre Dame and Auburn
C) Above Average (<1 sd above) - Texas A&M, Florida, Wisconsin, Tennessee, South Carolina, Iowa, Louisville, Arkansas, Kentucky, Stanford, Washington, Nebraska, Kansas, USC, UCLA and Minnesota
D) Below Average (<1 sd below) - Indiana, Clemson, Michigan State, TCU, Duke, Arizona State, Virginia, Miami, Oregon, Ole Miss, North Carolina, Baylor, Maryland, Purdue, Northwestern, West Virginia, Missouri, California, Illinois, Mississippi State, Arizona, Colorado, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma State, NC State, Kansas State, Virginia Tech and Oregon State
E) Weak (1-2 sd below) - Vanderbilt, Utah, Rutgers, Texas Tech, Boston College, Georgia Tech, Iowa State, Washington State and Wake Forest
F) Failing (>2 sd below mean) - none

While I agree with the analysis of growth the 5 year average is a poor indicator for conferences between contracts and the % of growth is skewed by escalators/contracted revenue. I noticed a number of years ago that most escalators are ~ just under 2 million per year, regardless of the contracted amount they are escalating. So the more your base media compensation the lower your % of increase and the less your base media compensation the higher your % of increase, which of course is misleading as the gaps stay about the same. New contracts are gap drivers and the better reflection of performance. And the drag on the SEC will be any remaining time on the grossly outdated CBS T1 contract.

(07-05-2021 05:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 04:42 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  I analyzed the last five years of Equity in Athletics reported revenue.
Average P5 revenue:
2015-16 @ $102M
2016-17 @ $109M
2017-18 @ $118M
2018-19 @ $121M
2019-20 @ $119M

Cumulative P5 revenue growth @ 16% (ACC 23%, BIG 21%, PAC 17%, SEC 11% and B12 9%). Note that comparisons of average conference payouts growth may be skewed depending on contract bowls in a given year.

Putting a Bell-curve on athletic department revenue generators, programs can be classified as:
A) Outstanding (>2 std dev above P5 mean) - Texas and Ohio State
B) Strong (1-2 sd above) - Alabama, Michigan, Georgia, Florida State, Oklahoma, Penn State, LSU, Notre Dame and Auburn
C) Above Average (<1 sd above) - Texas A&M, Florida, Wisconsin, Tennessee, South Carolina, Iowa, Louisville, Arkansas, Kentucky, Stanford, Washington, Nebraska, Kansas, USC, UCLA and Minnesota
D) Below Average (<1 sd below) - Indiana, Clemson, Michigan State, TCU, Duke, Arizona State, Virginia, Miami, Oregon, Ole Miss, North Carolina, Baylor, Maryland, Purdue, Northwestern, West Virginia, Missouri, California, Illinois, Mississippi State, Arizona, Colorado, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma State, NC State, Kansas State, Virginia Tech and Oregon State
E) Weak (1-2 sd below) - Vanderbilt, Utah, Rutgers, Texas Tech, Boston College, Georgia Tech, Iowa State, Washington State and Wake Forest
F) Failing (>2 sd below mean) - none

While I agree with the analysis of growth the 5 year average is a poor indicator for conferences between contracts and the % of growth is skewed by escalators/contracted revenue. I noticed a number of years ago that most escalators are ~ just under 2 million per year, regardless of the contracted amount they are escalating. So the more your base media compensation the lower your % of increase and the less your base media compensation the higher your % of increase, which of course is misleading as the gaps stay about the same. New contracts are gap drivers and the better reflection of performance. And the drag on the SEC will be any remaining time on the grossly outdated CBS T1 contract.

IMO, it's insightful to see whether the leaders (e.g. UT, OSU, Bama) are increasing their financial advantages...or if the laggards (e.g., WFU, WSU, ISU) are somehow able to keep up. The pandemic helped close some financial disparities, especially in the ACC.

To have stable P5-level funding, it appears that schools needed to be generating at least $90M in FY2020. P5 schools that generated less than $80M in gross revenues should be worried about their long-term viability as "power" schools.

(07-05-2021 07:00 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 05:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 04:42 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  I analyzed the last five years of Equity in Athletics reported revenue.
Average P5 revenue:
2015-16 @ $102M
2016-17 @ $109M
2017-18 @ $118M
2018-19 @ $121M
2019-20 @ $119M

Cumulative P5 revenue growth @ 16% (ACC 23%, BIG 21%, PAC 17%, SEC 11% and B12 9%). Note that comparisons of average conference payouts growth may be skewed depending on contract bowls in a given year.

Putting a Bell-curve on athletic department revenue generators, programs can be classified as:
A) Outstanding (>2 std dev above P5 mean) - Texas and Ohio State
B) Strong (1-2 sd above) - Alabama, Michigan, Georgia, Florida State, Oklahoma, Penn State, LSU, Notre Dame and Auburn
C) Above Average (<1 sd above) - Texas A&M, Florida, Wisconsin, Tennessee, South Carolina, Iowa, Louisville, Arkansas, Kentucky, Stanford, Washington, Nebraska, Kansas, USC, UCLA and Minnesota
D) Below Average (<1 sd below) - Indiana, Clemson, Michigan State, TCU, Duke, Arizona State, Virginia, Miami, Oregon, Ole Miss, North Carolina, Baylor, Maryland, Purdue, Northwestern, West Virginia, Missouri, California, Illinois, Mississippi State, Arizona, Colorado, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma State, NC State, Kansas State, Virginia Tech and Oregon State
E) Weak (1-2 sd below) - Vanderbilt, Utah, Rutgers, Texas Tech, Boston College, Georgia Tech, Iowa State, Washington State and Wake Forest
F) Failing (>2 sd below mean) - none

While I agree with the analysis of growth the 5 year average is a poor indicator for conferences between contracts and the % of growth is skewed by escalators/contracted revenue. I noticed a number of years ago that most escalators are ~ just under 2 million per year, regardless of the contracted amount they are escalating. So the more your base media compensation the lower your % of increase and the less your base media compensation the higher your % of increase, which of course is misleading as the gaps stay about the same. New contracts are gap drivers and the better reflection of performance. And the drag on the SEC will be any remaining time on the grossly outdated CBS T1 contract.

IMO, it's insightful to see whether the leaders (e.g. UT, OSU, Bama) are increasing their financial advantages...or if the laggards (e.g., WFU, WSU, ISU) are somehow able to keep up. The pandemic helped close some financial disparities, especially in the ACC.

To have stable P5-level funding, it appears that schools needed to be generating at least $90M in FY2020. P5 schools that generated less than $80M in gross revenues should be worried about their long-term viability as "power" schools.

Geeze, that was evident from just seeing each schools totals, especially for 2019-20 which saw a downturn not in the stupid media revenue but particularly in donations which means there is much more going on here than media revenue can fix. You have demographic shifts occurring as Boomers move headlong into retirement, the older Boomers into assisted living and healthcare issues. You have a societal backlash against politicizing sports in that mix and a breakdown on demographic giving would separate out retirement downsizing in giving and decreases for other reasons, chief among which is probably the gap in the disposable income and actual wealth of the generations. All of that is going to impact everyone but privates in particular. There may even be some disassociation due to loss of amateur status by fiat even though most of us knew it was long dead anyway in actual practice.

And when the average revenue for each conference was higher than 104.4 million by the PAC why did you arbitrarily pick 90 million as a cut off? Why not 100 for sustainability? When the SEC and B1G average a per school total of 135.1 and 130.7 respectively I think the threshold is going to be higher than 90 for competitive reasons.

At 90 here are the # of schools in each conference missing that mark:
SEC: Vanderbilt
B1G: Rutgers
B12: Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Texas Tech, Iowa State
ACC: N.C. State, Boston College, Syracuse, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest
PAC: Utah, Oregon State, Washington State

At 100 you add these:
SEC: Ole Miss at 98.6 (missing bowl revenue due to probation so above 100 most years).
B1G: Maryland at 92.2
B12: West Virginia at 92.9
ACC: Pittsburgh at 99.7 (close enough)
Virginia Tech at 98.9 (another borderline who is in).
PAC: Colorado at 95.6 (on the edge), Arizona at 93.4

IMO at this level you have some legit tweeners which will only be culled by participation and whether they run in red ink. But IMO the threshold for remaining competitive will begin at 100 million and only go up as donations decline.

And you missed, or didn't address my point that 2 million per school in escalators are statically higher %'s of increase against 106 million than it is against 135 million.

And I highlight the latter because your stat was deceptive as the gap year to year after escalators remains nearly the same in actual numbers. What was revealing in 2019-20's data was the high degree of separation in the impact of a down year between conferences, not just within the ACC (which was interesting and worth noting).

The ACC lost a collective 102 million, the PAC only 23.7, the Big 10 24 million, and the B12 55 million with Texas losing 24 of that. The SEC gained 8 million which is 16 million shy of a normal escalator year, and little of any of it was media revenue which mostly paid out.

(07-05-2021 07:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 07:00 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 05:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 04:42 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  I analyzed the last five years of Equity in Athletics reported revenue.
Average P5 revenue:
2015-16 @ $102M
2016-17 @ $109M
2017-18 @ $118M
2018-19 @ $121M
2019-20 @ $119M

Cumulative P5 revenue growth @ 16% (ACC 23%, BIG 21%, PAC 17%, SEC 11% and B12 9%). Note that comparisons of average conference payouts growth may be skewed depending on contract bowls in a given year.

Putting a Bell-curve on athletic department revenue generators, programs can be classified as:
A) Outstanding (>2 std dev above P5 mean) - Texas and Ohio State
B) Strong (1-2 sd above) - Alabama, Michigan, Georgia, Florida State, Oklahoma, Penn State, LSU, Notre Dame and Auburn
C) Above Average (<1 sd above) - Texas A&M, Florida, Wisconsin, Tennessee, South Carolina, Iowa, Louisville, Arkansas, Kentucky, Stanford, Washington, Nebraska, Kansas, USC, UCLA and Minnesota
D) Below Average (<1 sd below) - Indiana, Clemson, Michigan State, TCU, Duke, Arizona State, Virginia, Miami, Oregon, Ole Miss, North Carolina, Baylor, Maryland, Purdue, Northwestern, West Virginia, Missouri, California, Illinois, Mississippi State, Arizona, Colorado, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma State, NC State, Kansas State, Virginia Tech and Oregon State
E) Weak (1-2 sd below) - Vanderbilt, Utah, Rutgers, Texas Tech, Boston College, Georgia Tech, Iowa State, Washington State and Wake Forest
F) Failing (>2 sd below mean) - none

While I agree with the analysis of growth the 5 year average is a poor indicator for conferences between contracts and the % of growth is skewed by escalators/contracted revenue. I noticed a number of years ago that most escalators are ~ just under 2 million per year, regardless of the contracted amount they are escalating. So the more your base media compensation the lower your % of increase and the less your base media compensation the higher your % of increase, which of course is misleading as the gaps stay about the same. New contracts are gap drivers and the better reflection of performance. And the drag on the SEC will be any remaining time on the grossly outdated CBS T1 contract.

IMO, it's insightful to see whether the leaders (e.g. UT, OSU, Bama) are increasing their financial advantages...or if the laggards (e.g., WFU, WSU, ISU) are somehow able to keep up. The pandemic helped close some financial disparities, especially in the ACC.

To have stable P5-level funding, it appears that schools needed to be generating at least $90M in FY2020. P5 schools that generated less than $80M in gross revenues should be worried about their long-term viability as "power" schools.

Geeze, that was evident from just seeing each schools totals, especially for 2019-20 which saw a downturn not in the stupid media revenue but particularly in donations which means there is much more going on here than media revenue can fix. You have demographic shifts occurring as Boomers move headlong into retirement, the older Boomers into assisted living and healthcare issues. You have a societal backlash against politicizing sports in that mix and a breakdown on demographic giving would separate out retirement downsizing in giving and decreases for other reasons, chief among which is probably the gap in the disposable income and actual wealth of the generations. All of that is going to impact everyone but privates in particular. There may even be some disassociation due to loss of amateur status by fiat even though most of us knew it was long dead anyway in actual practice.

And when the average revenue for each conference was higher than 104.4 million by the PAC why did you arbitrarily pick 90 million as a cut off? Why not 100 for sustainability? When the SEC and B1G average a per school total of 135.1 and 130.7 respectively I think the threshold is going to be higher than 90 for competitive reasons.

At 90 here are the # of schools in each conference missing that mark:
SEC: Vanderbilt
B1G: Rutgers
B12: Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Texas Tech, Iowa State
ACC: N.C. State, Boston College, Syracuse, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest
PAC: Utah, Oregon State, Washington State

At 100 you add these:
SEC: Ole Miss at 98.6 (missing bowl revenue due to probation so above 100 most years).
B1G: Maryland at 92.2
B12: West Virginia at 92.9
ACC: Pittsburgh at 99.7 (close enough)
Virginia Tech at 98.9 (another borderline who is in).
PAC: Colorado at 95.6 (on the edge), Arizona at 93.4

IMO at this level you have some legit tweeners which will only be culled by participation and whether they run in red ink. But IMO the threshold for remaining competitive will begin at 100 million and only go up as donations decline.

And you missed, or didn't address my point that 2 million per school in escalators are statically higher %'s of increase against 106 million than it is against 135 million.

And I highlight the latter because your stat was deceptive as the gap year to year after escalators remains nearly the same in actual numbers. What was revealing in 2019-20's data was the high degree of separation in the impact of a down year between conferences, not just within the ACC (which was interesting and worth noting).

The ACC lost a collective 102 million, the PAC only 23.7, the Big 10 24 million, and the B12 55 million with Texas losing 24 of that. The SEC gained 8 million which is 16 million shy of a normal escalator year, and little of any of it was media revenue which mostly paid out.

FWIW, $90M in gross revenues in FY20 for P5 teams is not an arbitrary threshold. Statistically, $90M is one standard deviation below the average P5 revenue level. Athletic departments that achieved at least $90M in revenues are normal...close to the average P5 program.

Some institutions are showing direct transfers from the University as annual revenue which is like your child showing his allowance from his parent as "income".

When I went to Equity in Athletics I got a match for ND at 166 million in revenue, but some of the others were off.

School Men Women Not Allocated Total

ND 106M 3 M 57 M 166 M
Rutgers 50 M 19 M 20 M 89 M
MD 59 M 2 M 38 M 109 M
NCSU 67 M 7 M 31 M 105 M
UVa 71 M 20 M 32 M 123 M
Clemson 76 M 8 M 33 M 117 M
Indiana 83 M 8 M 36 M 126 M
ASU 64 M 3 M 28 M 105 M
UCLA 51 M 4 40 M 96 M I feel the need to add Oregon
Oregon 89 M 4 M 35 M 128 M

Not allocated seems to be code for conference distribution, of course that assumes accounting where the capital gift is not counted as annual income until it is brought forward on a project. Rutgers only showing $20 M seems in line with them getting a half share and MD's 38 compared Indiana's 36 seems to be in line with MD being advanced money by the Big 10 to be docked in later years.

After adding Oregon I am more confused. Then I added Bama

Bama 127 M 4 M 52 M 183 M

(07-05-2021 10:02 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 07:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 07:00 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 05:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 04:42 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  I analyzed the last five years of Equity in Athletics reported revenue.
Average P5 revenue:
2015-16 @ $102M
2016-17 @ $109M
2017-18 @ $118M
2018-19 @ $121M
2019-20 @ $119M

Cumulative P5 revenue growth @ 16% (ACC 23%, BIG 21%, PAC 17%, SEC 11% and B12 9%). Note that comparisons of average conference payouts growth may be skewed depending on contract bowls in a given year.

Putting a Bell-curve on athletic department revenue generators, programs can be classified as:
A) Outstanding (>2 std dev above P5 mean) - Texas and Ohio State
B) Strong (1-2 sd above) - Alabama, Michigan, Georgia, Florida State, Oklahoma, Penn State, LSU, Notre Dame and Auburn
C) Above Average (<1 sd above) - Texas A&M, Florida, Wisconsin, Tennessee, South Carolina, Iowa, Louisville, Arkansas, Kentucky, Stanford, Washington, Nebraska, Kansas, USC, UCLA and Minnesota
D) Below Average (<1 sd below) - Indiana, Clemson, Michigan State, TCU, Duke, Arizona State, Virginia, Miami, Oregon, Ole Miss, North Carolina, Baylor, Maryland, Purdue, Northwestern, West Virginia, Missouri, California, Illinois, Mississippi State, Arizona, Colorado, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma State, NC State, Kansas State, Virginia Tech and Oregon State
E) Weak (1-2 sd below) - Vanderbilt, Utah, Rutgers, Texas Tech, Boston College, Georgia Tech, Iowa State, Washington State and Wake Forest
F) Failing (>2 sd below mean) - none

While I agree with the analysis of growth the 5 year average is a poor indicator for conferences between contracts and the % of growth is skewed by escalators/contracted revenue. I noticed a number of years ago that most escalators are ~ just under 2 million per year, regardless of the contracted amount they are escalating. So the more your base media compensation the lower your % of increase and the less your base media compensation the higher your % of increase, which of course is misleading as the gaps stay about the same. New contracts are gap drivers and the better reflection of performance. And the drag on the SEC will be any remaining time on the grossly outdated CBS T1 contract.

IMO, it's insightful to see whether the leaders (e.g. UT, OSU, Bama) are increasing their financial advantages...or if the laggards (e.g., WFU, WSU, ISU) are somehow able to keep up. The pandemic helped close some financial disparities, especially in the ACC.

To have stable P5-level funding, it appears that schools needed to be generating at least $90M in FY2020. P5 schools that generated less than $80M in gross revenues should be worried about their long-term viability as "power" schools.

Geeze, that was evident from just seeing each schools totals, especially for 2019-20 which saw a downturn not in the stupid media revenue but particularly in donations which means there is much more going on here than media revenue can fix. You have demographic shifts occurring as Boomers move headlong into retirement, the older Boomers into assisted living and healthcare issues. You have a societal backlash against politicizing sports in that mix and a breakdown on demographic giving would separate out retirement downsizing in giving and decreases for other reasons, chief among which is probably the gap in the disposable income and actual wealth of the generations. All of that is going to impact everyone but privates in particular. There may even be some disassociation due to loss of amateur status by fiat even though most of us knew it was long dead anyway in actual practice.

And when the average revenue for each conference was higher than 104.4 million by the PAC why did you arbitrarily pick 90 million as a cut off? Why not 100 for sustainability? When the SEC and B1G average a per school total of 135.1 and 130.7 respectively I think the threshold is going to be higher than 90 for competitive reasons.

At 90 here are the # of schools in each conference missing that mark:
SEC: Vanderbilt
B1G: Rutgers
B12: Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Texas Tech, Iowa State
ACC: N.C. State, Boston College, Syracuse, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest
PAC: Utah, Oregon State, Washington State

At 100 you add these:
SEC: Ole Miss at 98.6 (missing bowl revenue due to probation so above 100 most years).
B1G: Maryland at 92.2
B12: West Virginia at 92.9
ACC: Pittsburgh at 99.7 (close enough)
Virginia Tech at 98.9 (another borderline who is in).
PAC: Colorado at 95.6 (on the edge), Arizona at 93.4

IMO at this level you have some legit tweeners which will only be culled by participation and whether they run in red ink. But IMO the threshold for remaining competitive will begin at 100 million and only go up as donations decline.

And you missed, or didn't address my point that 2 million per school in escalators are statically higher %'s of increase against 106 million than it is against 135 million.

And I highlight the latter because your stat was deceptive as the gap year to year after escalators remains nearly the same in actual numbers. What was revealing in 2019-20's data was the high degree of separation in the impact of a down year between conferences, not just within the ACC (which was interesting and worth noting).

The ACC lost a collective 102 million, the PAC only 23.7, the Big 10 24 million, and the B12 55 million with Texas losing 24 of that. The SEC gained 8 million which is 16 million shy of a normal escalator year, and little of any of it was media revenue which mostly paid out.

FWIW, $90M in gross revenues in FY20 for P5 teams is not an arbitrary threshold. Statistically, $90M is one standard deviation below the average P5 revenue level. Athletic departments that achieved at least $90M in revenues are normal...close to the average P5 program.

Here is where people in antiquity would say, "Beyond this point there be dragons!" We are entering two fiscal years of chaos following one that might be called a negative anomaly. But it wasn't. It was the first data set in a paradigm shift. A standard deviation from a 5 year mean is meaningless at this point.

Fiscal Year 2020-21 will reflect the most dire year of COVID impact (we hope). What happened in 2019-20 was impactful data wholly different in that media revenue was hardly impacted and we had a full football season, and yet what was down was donations. There is the second blip in Boomer impact from transitioning to retirement for the youngest and the health care years for the oldest. Fiscal Year 2021-22 will be impacted by the first year, adaptation to, and chaos surrounding, NIL's impact upon revenue sports. The first blip started about 3-4 years ago with a slight but steady dipping trend in attendance for Boomers.

So I'm saying that right now using a standard deviation for 3 anomalous years in the middle of the most significant paradigm shift population wise in recent world history isn't worth a tinker's dam (which was the excess metal to be trimmed from a casting and tossed). in other words the detritus of the formation of a new world.

I'll bet that when inflation is added in and expenses turn out to be higher than expected that the threshold for succeeding will be a lot closer to 120 million in gross revenue than even 100, let alone 90.

Statistics like Economics navigates the future looking backwards. And that works fine until you have a new event horizon and we are having at least 3, possibly 5, and nobody knows how things are about to shake out on Boomer transition, the 2 following generations with precious little capital reserves, sports shifts from amateur models to pay models, a cultural identity crisis, and dwindling world resources, the resultant inflation, and mass migrations of refugees, all of which have historically preceded large regional to global conflagrations. So Wahoowa I'd forget the standard deviation stats until we settle into what's coming and that goes for all change. Eyes forward, powder dry, mind open, and brace yourself!

I agree with the standard deviation element, but something is hinky with the first set of raw numbers or Equity in Athletics is doing something. Maybe those are 18-19 numbers?

(07-05-2021 11:04 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I agree with the standard deviation element, but something is hinky with the first set of raw numbers or Equity in Athletics is doing something. Maybe those are 18-19 numbers?

Nothing is hinky. Look them up before defaulting to apologetics!!! The fiscal period is plainly stated. Academic protocol isn't going to prepare you for what is coming so go ahead and use a standard deviation if it gives you a blankie to hold onto. Next year will be bleak when the damage is finally known for 2020-21 (and I think it impacts Wall Street as well when the data breaks, but we'll see). There's a world of hurt coming down. 2019-20 data is only obliquely impacted by COVID. A lost NCAA tourney (regular hoops season played and conference tourneys almost completed) and baseball which is not a big part of revenue curtailed. And the loss in revenue was largely other.

(07-05-2021 10:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 10:02 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 07:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 07:00 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 05:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  While I agree with the analysis of growth the 5 year average is a poor indicator for conferences between contracts and the % of growth is skewed by escalators/contracted revenue. I noticed a number of years ago that most escalators are ~ just under 2 million per year, regardless of the contracted amount they are escalating. So the more your base media compensation the lower your % of increase and the less your base media compensation the higher your % of increase, which of course is misleading as the gaps stay about the same. New contracts are gap drivers and the better reflection of performance. And the drag on the SEC will be any remaining time on the grossly outdated CBS T1 contract.

IMO, it's insightful to see whether the leaders (e.g. UT, OSU, Bama) are increasing their financial advantages...or if the laggards (e.g., WFU, WSU, ISU) are somehow able to keep up. The pandemic helped close some financial disparities, especially in the ACC.

To have stable P5-level funding, it appears that schools needed to be generating at least $90M in FY2020. P5 schools that generated less than $80M in gross revenues should be worried about their long-term viability as "power" schools.

Geeze, that was evident from just seeing each schools totals, especially for 2019-20 which saw a downturn not in the stupid media revenue but particularly in donations which means there is much more going on here than media revenue can fix. You have demographic shifts occurring as Boomers move headlong into retirement, the older Boomers into assisted living and healthcare issues. You have a societal backlash against politicizing sports in that mix and a breakdown on demographic giving would separate out retirement downsizing in giving and decreases for other reasons, chief among which is probably the gap in the disposable income and actual wealth of the generations. All of that is going to impact everyone but privates in particular. There may even be some disassociation due to loss of amateur status by fiat even though most of us knew it was long dead anyway in actual practice.

And when the average revenue for each conference was higher than 104.4 million by the PAC why did you arbitrarily pick 90 million as a cut off? Why not 100 for sustainability? When the SEC and B1G average a per school total of 135.1 and 130.7 respectively I think the threshold is going to be higher than 90 for competitive reasons.

At 90 here are the # of schools in each conference missing that mark:
SEC: Vanderbilt
B1G: Rutgers
B12: Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Texas Tech, Iowa State
ACC: N.C. State, Boston College, Syracuse, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest
PAC: Utah, Oregon State, Washington State

At 100 you add these:
SEC: Ole Miss at 98.6 (missing bowl revenue due to probation so above 100 most years).
B1G: Maryland at 92.2
B12: West Virginia at 92.9
ACC: Pittsburgh at 99.7 (close enough)
Virginia Tech at 98.9 (another borderline who is in).
PAC: Colorado at 95.6 (on the edge), Arizona at 93.4

IMO at this level you have some legit tweeners which will only be culled by participation and whether they run in red ink. But IMO the threshold for remaining competitive will begin at 100 million and only go up as donations decline.

And you missed, or didn't address my point that 2 million per school in escalators are statically higher %'s of increase against 106 million than it is against 135 million.

And I highlight the latter because your stat was deceptive as the gap year to year after escalators remains nearly the same in actual numbers. What was revealing in 2019-20's data was the high degree of separation in the impact of a down year between conferences, not just within the ACC (which was interesting and worth noting).

The ACC lost a collective 102 million, the PAC only 23.7, the Big 10 24 million, and the B12 55 million with Texas losing 24 of that. The SEC gained 8 million which is 16 million shy of a normal escalator year, and little of any of it was media revenue which mostly paid out.

FWIW, $90M in gross revenues in FY20 for P5 teams is not an arbitrary threshold. Statistically, $90M is one standard deviation below the average P5 revenue level. Athletic departments that achieved at least $90M in revenues are normal...close to the average P5 program.

Here is where people in antiquity would say, "Beyond this point there be dragons!" We are entering two fiscal years of chaos following one that might be called a negative anomaly. But it wasn't. It was the first data set in a paradigm shift. A standard deviation from a 5 year mean is meaningless at this point.

Fiscal Year 2020-21 will reflect the most dire year of COVID impact (we hope). What happened in 2019-20 was impactful data wholly different in that media revenue was hardly impacted and we had a full football season, and yet what was down was donations. There is the second blip in Boomer impact from transitioning to retirement for the youngest and the health care years for the oldest. Fiscal Year 2021-22 will be impacted by the first year, adaptation to, and chaos surrounding, NIL's impact upon revenue sports. The first blip started about 3-4 years ago with a slight but steady dipping trend in attendance for Boomers.

So I'm saying that right now using a standard deviation for 3 anomalous years in the middle of the most significant paradigm shift population wise in recent world history isn't worth a tinker's dam (which was the excess metal to be trimmed from a casting and tossed). in other words the detritus of the formation of a new world.

I'll bet that when inflation is added in and expenses turn out to be higher than expected that the threshold for succeeding will be a lot closer to 120 million in gross revenue than even 100, let alone 90.

Statistics like Economics navigates the future looking backwards. And that works fine until you have a new event horizon and we are having at least 3, possibly 5, and nobody knows how things are about to shake out on Boomer transition, the 2 following generations with precious little capital reserves, sports shifts from amateur models to pay models, a cultural identity crisis, and dwindling world resources, the resultant inflation, and mass migrations of refugees, all of which have historically preceded large regional to global conflagrations. So Wahoowa I'd forget the standard deviation stats until we settle into what's coming and that goes for all change. Eyes forward, powder dry, mind open, and brace yourself!

If we are going through a major paradigm shift, then it’s the schools in relatively weak financial positions that need to be monitored more closely…WSU & Ore State, Wake & BC, ISU & TTU, Rutgers or Vandy. Historical performance isn’t necessarily a great predictor of the future, but it helps focus action to where the most significant action should be occurring.

(07-05-2021 11:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 11:04 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I agree with the standard deviation element, but something is hinky with the first set of raw numbers or Equity in Athletics is doing something. Maybe those are 18-19 numbers?

Nothing is hinky. Look them up before defaulting to apologetics!!! The fiscal period is plainly stated. Academic protocol isn't going to prepare you for what is coming so go ahead and use a standard deviation if it gives you a blankie to hold onto. Next year will be bleak when the damage is finally known for 2020-21 (and I think it impacts Wall Street as well when the data breaks, but we'll see). There's a world of hurt coming down. 2019-20 data is only obliquely impacted by COVID. A lost NCAA tourney (regular hoops season played and conference tourneys almost completed) and baseball which is not a big part of revenue curtailed. And the loss in revenue was largely other.

I did look them up and posted what I found.

"When I went to Equity in Athletics I got a match for ND at 166 million in revenue, but some of the others were off.

School Men Women Not Allocated Total

ND 106M 3 M 57 M 166 M
Rutgers 50 M 19 M 20 M 89 M
MD 59 M 2 M 38 M 109 M
NCSU 67 M 7 M 31 M 105 M
UVa 71 M 20 M 32 M 123 M
Clemson 76 M 8 M 33 M 117 M
Indiana 83 M 8 M 36 M 126 M
ASU 64 M 3 M 28 M 105 M
UCLA 51 M 4 40 M 96 M I feel the need to add Oregon
Oregon 89 M 4 M 35 M 128 M

Not allocated seems to be code for conference distribution, of course that assumes accounting where the capital gift is not counted as annual income until it is brought forward on a project. Rutgers only showing $20 M seems in line with them getting a half share and MD's 38 compared Indiana's 36 seems to be in line with MD being advanced money by the Big 10 to be docked in later years.

After adding Oregon I am more confused. Then I added Bama

Bama 127 M 4 M 52 M 183 M "

(07-06-2021 10:04 AM)Statefan Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 11:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 11:04 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I agree with the standard deviation element, but something is hinky with the first set of raw numbers or Equity in Athletics is doing something. Maybe those are 18-19 numbers?

Nothing is hinky. Look them up before defaulting to apologetics!!! The fiscal period is plainly stated. Academic protocol isn't going to prepare you for what is coming so go ahead and use a standard deviation if it gives you a blankie to hold onto. Next year will be bleak when the damage is finally known for 2020-21 (and I think it impacts Wall Street as well when the data breaks, but we'll see). There's a world of hurt coming down. 2019-20 data is only obliquely impacted by COVID. A lost NCAA tourney (regular hoops season played and conference tourneys almost completed) and baseball which is not a big part of revenue curtailed. And the loss in revenue was largely other.

I did look them up and posted what I found.

"When I went to Equity in Athletics I got a match for ND at 166 million in revenue, but some of the others were off.

School Men Women Not Allocated Total

ND 106M 3 M 57 M 166 M
Rutgers 50 M 19 M 20 M 89 M
MD 59 M 2 M 38 M 109 M
NCSU 67 M 7 M 31 M 105 M
UVa 71 M 20 M 32 M 123 M
Clemson 76 M 8 M 33 M 117 M
Indiana 83 M 8 M 36 M 126 M
ASU 64 M 3 M 28 M 105 M
UCLA 51 M 4 40 M 96 M I feel the need to add Oregon
Oregon 89 M 4 M 35 M 128 M

Not allocated seems to be code for conference distribution, of course that assumes accounting where the capital gift is not counted as annual income until it is brought forward on a project. Rutgers only showing $20 M seems in line with them getting a half share and MD's 38 compared Indiana's 36 seems to be in line with MD being advanced money by the Big 10 to be docked in later years.

After adding Oregon I am more confused. Then I added Bama

Bama 127 M 4 M 52 M 183 M "

Each has a Grand Total for All Revenue reported for all schools. Some of those, like Clemson's, has a gray footnote saying shortfalls were covered with reserve funds.

It is the official report for the fiscal year, albeit an irregular year in part. There is no confusion except for your unwillingness to accept the numbers, but unfortunately that too is common.

For readers of this thread: The link for the site can easily be had by googling EADA or Equity in Athletics for anyone who wishes to look for themselves. You will have to type in the official, and spell it correctly, name of the school. Click on the name of the school in the drop down box that appears. Sometimes multiple sites appear for all schools in the state whose names begin the same but which have various locations. Click on the one corresponding to the campus you seek (like College Station while searching Texas A&M). Then click continue. When the report pops up click on "expenses and revenue." Scroll down until you find "Revenue Totals" and look at the last line which should say "Grand Total" and that's your gross total revenue figure. That is the amount of all revenue and is the number you will likely have seen annually reported here and elsewhere and in publications.

The only mystery, and it exists every year, are in the breakdowns because each school will have its own method of reporting expenses and revenue the same way different CPA's do. It is what it is, drama and histrionics, and COVID aside.

Media Revenue for 2019-2020 was about in line. So gate, donations, and expenses had to account for the losses.

And for the record when you complained last night I ran the ACC schools over and all reported figures were identical to what I posted. Either you are getting lost in the breakdown, which I don't report and which is not transparent on any given year for any given school, which is why the bottom line revenue which is consistent and the best indication of a schools financial health is used, or you are deliberately pettifogging a simple matter.

This is information taken directly from each schools annual fiscal filing to the Federal Government and the information reported is the grand total of all revenue reported by each school so if you think the data is hinky take it up with the school.

(07-06-2021 09:12 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  If we are going through a major paradigm shift, then it’s the schools in relatively weak financial positions that need to be monitored more closely…WSU & Ore State, Wake & BC, ISU & TTU, Rutgers or Vandy. Historical performance isn’t necessarily a great predictor of the future, but it helps focus action to where the most significant action should be occurring.

One thing the data shows fairly clearly is that there is a strong correlation between weak revenue performance and weak football performance. The 13 lowest revenue schools in the P5 (the bottom 20%) are shown below with their 10 year average Sagarin performance rank within the FBS (out of 130 schools).

83 Illinois
81 Purdue
77 Colorado
49 Arizona
71 Maryland
89 Rutgers
67 Vanderbilt
58 Boston College
60 Syracuse
72 Wake Forest
65 Oregon State
52 Iowa State
50 Washington State

Other weak performers in football who don't suffer in the revenue department include Duke (33 revenue/59 FB), Indiana (27/68), Kentucky (17/61), Virginia (36/69) and Kansas (34/101). It's not hard to figure out what they have in common.

(07-06-2021 01:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-06-2021 09:12 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  If we are going through a major paradigm shift, then it’s the schools in relatively weak financial positions that need to be monitored more closely…WSU & Ore State, Wake & BC, ISU & TTU, Rutgers or Vandy. Historical performance isn’t necessarily a great predictor of the future, but it helps focus action to where the most significant action should be occurring.

One thing the data shows fairly clearly is that there is a strong correlation between weak revenue performance and weak football performance. The 13 lowest revenue schools in the P5 (the bottom 20%) are shown below with their 10 year average Sagarin performance rank within the FBS (out of 130 schools).

83 Illinois
81 Purdue
77 Colorado
49 Arizona
71 Maryland
89 Rutgers
67 Vanderbilt
58 Boston College
60 Syracuse
72 Wake Forest
65 Oregon State
52 Iowa State
50 Washington State

Other weak performers in football who don't suffer in the revenue department include Duke (33 revenue/59 FB), Indiana (27/68), Kentucky (17/61), Virginia (36/69) and Kansas (34/101). It's not hard to figure out what they have in common.

Agree with the observation about the strong correlation between weak finances and weak football performances.

I'm always searching for exceptions to correlations in order to understand how to surpass expectations. For example,
1) WSU - weak revenue, but football outperforms. Maybe Mike Leach, in the right setting, is truly a special coach.
2) Clemson - only above average revenue, but football is outstanding. Maybe IPTAY funding is not included as AD gross revenue...plus Dabo Swinney (and staff) is exceptional.

(07-06-2021 02:49 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-06-2021 01:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-06-2021 09:12 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  If we are going through a major paradigm shift, then it’s the schools in relatively weak financial positions that need to be monitored more closely…WSU & Ore State, Wake & BC, ISU & TTU, Rutgers or Vandy. Historical performance isn’t necessarily a great predictor of the future, but it helps focus action to where the most significant action should be occurring.

One thing the data shows fairly clearly is that there is a strong correlation between weak revenue performance and weak football performance. The 13 lowest revenue schools in the P5 (the bottom 20%) are shown below with their 10 year average Sagarin performance rank within the FBS (out of 130 schools).

83 Illinois
81 Purdue
77 Colorado
49 Arizona
71 Maryland
89 Rutgers
67 Vanderbilt
58 Boston College
60 Syracuse
72 Wake Forest
65 Oregon State
52 Iowa State
50 Washington State

Other weak performers in football who don't suffer in the revenue department include Duke (33 revenue/59 FB), Indiana (27/68), Kentucky (17/61), Virginia (36/69) and Kansas (34/101). It's not hard to figure out what they have in common.

Agree with the observation about the strong correlation between weak finances and weak football performances.

I'm always searching for exceptions to correlations in order to understand how to surpass expectations. For example,
1) WSU - weak revenue, but football outperforms. Maybe Mike Leach, in the right setting, is truly a special coach.
2) Clemson - only above average revenue, but football is outstanding. Maybe IPTAY funding is not included as AD gross revenue...plus Dabo Swinney (and staff) is exceptional.

One thing I'm always curious about is whether there is a causal relationship in the correlation, and if so, in which direction. That is, do weak finances contribute to poor performance, or does poor performance lead to weak finances?

Also, is there a tipping point? That is, is there a level of revenue that is fully adequate to support good performance, and beyond which performance gains are negligible? Texas could be an example of this. They're rolling in dough, and seem to underperform way too often.

(07-06-2021 12:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-06-2021 10:04 AM)Statefan Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 11:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 11:04 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I agree with the standard deviation element, but something is hinky with the first set of raw numbers or Equity in Athletics is doing something. Maybe those are 18-19 numbers?

Nothing is hinky. Look them up before defaulting to apologetics!!! The fiscal period is plainly stated. Academic protocol isn't going to prepare you for what is coming so go ahead and use a standard deviation if it gives you a blankie to hold onto. Next year will be bleak when the damage is finally known for 2020-21 (and I think it impacts Wall Street as well when the data breaks, but we'll see). There's a world of hurt coming down. 2019-20 data is only obliquely impacted by COVID. A lost NCAA tourney (regular hoops season played and conference tourneys almost completed) and baseball which is not a big part of revenue curtailed. And the loss in revenue was largely other.

I did look them up and posted what I found.

"When I went to Equity in Athletics I got a match for ND at 166 million in revenue, but some of the others were off.

School Men Women Not Allocated Total

ND 106M 3 M 57 M 166 M
Rutgers 50 M 19 M 20 M 89 M
MD 59 M 2 M 38 M 109 M
NCSU 67 M 7 M 31 M 105 M
UVa 71 M 20 M 32 M 123 M
Clemson 76 M 8 M 33 M 117 M
Indiana 83 M 8 M 36 M 126 M
ASU 64 M 3 M 28 M 105 M
UCLA 51 M 4 40 M 96 M I feel the need to add Oregon
Oregon 89 M 4 M 35 M 128 M

Not allocated seems to be code for conference distribution, of course that assumes accounting where the capital gift is not counted as annual income until it is brought forward on a project. Rutgers only showing $20 M seems in line with them getting a half share and MD's 38 compared Indiana's 36 seems to be in line with MD being advanced money by the Big 10 to be docked in later years.

After adding Oregon I am more confused. Then I added Bama

Bama 127 M 4 M 52 M 183 M "

Each has a Grand Total for All Revenue reported for all schools. Some of those, like Clemson's, has a gray footnote saying shortfalls were covered with reserve funds.

It is the official report for the fiscal year, albeit an irregular year in part. There is no confusion except for your unwillingness to accept the numbers, but unfortunately that too is common.

For readers of this thread: The link for the site can easily be had by googling EADA or Equity in Athletics for anyone who wishes to look for themselves. You will have to type in the official, and spell it correctly, name of the school. Click on the name of the school in the drop down box that appears. Sometimes multiple sites appear for all schools in the state whose names begin the same but which have various locations. Click on the one corresponding to the campus you seek (like College Station while searching Texas A&M). Then click continue. When the report pops up click on "expenses and revenue." Scroll down until you find "Revenue Totals" and look at the last line which should say "Grand Total" and that's your gross total revenue figure. That is the amount of all revenue and is the number you will likely have seen annually reported here and elsewhere and in publications.

The only mystery, and it exists every year, are in the breakdowns because each school will have its own method of reporting expenses and revenue the same way different CPA's do. It is what it is, drama and histrionics, and COVID aside.

Media Revenue for 2019-2020 was about in line. So gate, donations, and expenses had to account for the losses.

And for the record when you complained last night I ran the ACC schools over and all reported figures were identical to what I posted. Either you are getting lost in the breakdown, which I don't report and which is not transparent on any given year for any given school, which is why the bottom line revenue which is consistent and the best indication of a schools financial health is used, or you are deliberately pettifogging a simple matter.

This is information taken directly from each schools annual fiscal filing to the Federal Government and the information reported is the grand total of all revenue reported by each school so if you think the data is hinky take it up with the school.

Equity in Athletics has two data tools - one for a single school, one that allows you to compare 4 schools at a time. I used the tool that compared schools. Those numbers do not match. I'm not sure why the snark. One of the reasons I was curious is because the State of NC requires modified accrual as its standard of accounting while many entities use inferior accrual or cash. Also with audits usually forced to balance to the penny in NC, creative expenditures are sometimes created to store revenue received in that year.

I understand that no one else actually gives a ****.

However I must thank you for teaching me a new word. Pettifogging sounds like a word that one would hear in a New Orleans Courtroom. I'll have to pass it along.

I still believe the Top 16 schools that make all the money need to break away and keep it.


1. Ohio State: $225,542,037
2. Texas: $191,737,849
3. Alabama: $189,242,298
4. Georgia: $179,295,904
5. Michigan: $168,244,643
7. Penn State: $165,077,390
8. Louisiana State: $160,460,476
9. Oklahoma: $159,116,738
10. Florida State: $155,656,855
11. Auburn: $153,703,749
12. Iowa: $145,095,544
13. Wisconsin: $143,954,553
14. Texas A&M: $143,807,835
15. Louisville: $140,867,112
16. Florida: $139,287,811

Just missed the cut…..
17. Kentucky: $138,492,743