Category Archives: Big Ten

Penn State’s NCAA Sanctions: The Effects On An Athletics Department

Yesterday, the NCAA levied what many consider to be unprecedented penalties upon Penn State.  Including within the NCAA’s sanctions, was the imposing of a $60 million fine to be paid by Penn State over the next five years.  This $60 million figure is clearly large, leading some to believe that while the NCAA did not impose the “death penalty” upon the football program, it nonetheless intended to decimate it. 

How though, will the $60 million fine actually impact the operations of Penn State’s football program and the Penn State athletics department?  In the grand scheme of Division I athletics, Penn State has posted impressive revenues in recent years.  For 2010-11, the most recent year for which Department of Education data is available, Penn State’s athletics department reported total revenues of $116,118,026.00.  The athletics department also reported expenses of $84,498,339.00.  While many athletics directors will note that the numbers reported to the Department of Education are not inclusive of every cost incurred by an athletics department, these figures at least give some idea as to the type of budget Penn State’s athletics department is operating under.

That being said, it is arguable that at least when considering the Department of Education data, having to shell out on average $12 million per year over the next five years to comply with the NCAA’s sanctions is not going to destroy Penn State athletics.  However, the story is not that simple.  One has to take into consideration the multitude of budgetary factors Penn State’s athletics department is likely now facing as a result of the NCAA sanctions.  Along with losing sponsors like State Farm and facing a possible credit downgrade by Moody’s, Penn State athletics likely now has to rework its budget to determine where the $60 million is going to come from. 

Frank Hardymon is the Associate Athletic Director – CFO at Georgia Tech.  While he can only explain the budget planning process engaged in at Georgia Tech, he notes, “I would guess our methods of planning and budgeting are similar to those utilized by other institutions.”  This planning begins the spring prior to the July 1 start of the fiscal year, when the upcoming year’s budget is completed.  “In our case, nearly every dollar which we project receiving is accounted for in the budget,” Hardymon noted. 

Likely, a similar circumstance exists at Penn State.  While the Department of Education arguably demonstrates that the athletics department is operating with a surplus, many athletics directors are quick to note that is not the case, as not every expense an athletics department incurs is reported to the Department of Education.  As such, Penn State is likely looking towards contingency provisions in its budget to gather the money by which to pay the $60 million fine.  “We build in as much contingency as we can every year; some years we may have close to $5,000,000.00 in contingency factors into the budget, other years that amount is quite a bit less,” Hardymon said.

It is unknown whether Penn State’s athletics department had any contingencies built into its budget.  If so, it is highly unlikely that the contingency amount would allow for the payment of a $60 million fine.  As such, Penn State will likely have to scrape from other areas of its budget to pay the imposed fine.  Areas in which Penn State could cut from its budget would likely be from recruiting expenses, travel costs and future coaching salaries.  However, the most likely area in which Penn State could draw from is facility improvements.  While the department will have to continue paying under the loan terms for already existing improvements, it is unlikely that the athletics department will undertake any new building during the time period in which the fine is being paid.  Hardymon noted, “We also maintain a detailed five-year income projection which we update frequently.  That analysis factors in projected facility improvements needed during those five years.” 

Overall, the financial sanction imposed upon Penn State by the NCAA is indeed a blow to the athletics department.  However, given Penn State’s apparent athletics revenue along with proper budgeting moving forward during the next five years, it is likely that the athletics department will be able to continue to function financially.

Wisconsin’s Athletic Department Budget – Expenses

Yesterday, BusinessofCollegeSports.com gave you an exclusive, in-depth look into Wisconsin’s athletic department revenues.  Previously, BusinessofCollegeSports.com reported that per data obtained from the Department of Education, Wisconsin had the 9th highest expenses of all Division I schools.  Randy Marnocha, Wisconsin’s Associate AD for Business Operations graciously provided BusinessofCollegeSports.com with in-depth information about Wisconsin’s expenses for 2010-11.

In 2010-11, Wisconsin had operating expenses of $80,855,012.00 and capital expenses of $3,010,174.00.

The chart below depicts the items making up Wisconsin’s $80,855,012.00 worth of operating expenses.

Operating Expenses Amount
Salaries & Fringes $32,919,613.00
Operating Expenses $28,519,000.00
Debt Services $10,171,200.00
Financial Aid $5,506,631.00
Post Season $3,738,568.00

The following account for the $28,519,000.00 Wisconsin spent on “operating expenses” last year:  Business travel, team travel, recruiting travel, interview/relocation costs, advertising, concessions/catering resales, team meals/catering/housing, guarantees, equipment maitenance and repairs, building/grounds maintenance and repairs, membership dues (Big Ten Conference, etc.), officials, postage/freight, printing, prizes and awards, equipment rentals, space rentals, medical services, police services, professional services, subscriptions, athletic equipment, building and grounds supplies, medical supplies, office supplies, telephone service, and insurance/property tax.

With respect to debt services, the figure shown above includes the total paid off by Wisconsin on various capital projects.  In particular, in 2010-11, Wisconsin paid off $6,723,150.00 on its football stadium, Camp Randall, and $2,571,736 on its basketball and hockey facility, the Kohl Center.

The financial aid amount reflected is composed of the following:  Scholarships, tuition remissions, NCAA Opportunity Fund, NCAA Special Assistance and a continuing education fund.  The largest expenditure in the financial aid section went toward scholarships, for which Wisconsin spent $9,595,562.00 in 2010-11.  Notably, this amount was lower than that which Wisconsin expended on scholarships in 2009-10.  In 2009-10, Wisconsin spent $9,389,828.00 on scholarships.

The following chart depicts Wisconsin’s 2010-11 post season revenues and expenses.  The revenues and expenses are calculated for all of Wisconsin’s teams which participated in their respective 2010-11 post seasons.  Those teams included:  Football, men’s and women’s basketball, men’s and women’s hockey, men’s and women’s soccer, softball, men’s and women’s swimming, men’s and women’s tennis, volleyball and wrestling.

Post Season Revenue $2,579,248.00
Post Season Expenses $3,738,568.00
TOTAL ($1,159,320.00)

Notably, Wisconsin suffered a loss overall when it came to post season participation in 2010-11.  It should be noted, however, that in 2010-11, Wisconsin received a bowl payout of$2,493,258.00 from the Big Ten Conference.

BusinessofCollegeSports.com would like to extend a gracious “thank you” to Randy Marnocha for his assistance with this series and his generosity with his time.

Wisconsin’s Athletic Department Budget – Revenues

Recently, BusinessofCollegeSports.com wrote that per data obtained via the Department of Education, Wisconsin’s athletic department had revenues of $93,594,766.00 and expenses of $92,939,345.00 in 2010-11.  Comparing these numbers to those that other athletic departments submitted to the Department of Education demonstrated that in 2010-11, Wisconsin had the 9th highest expenses and the 12th highest revenues of all Division I athletic departments.

Given the idiosyncracies of the Department of Education data for athletic departments, BusinessofCollegeSports.com followed up with Wisconsin’s athletic department to delve deeper into their budget.  Randy Marnocha, Wisconsin’s Associate AD for Business Operations graciously opened up the athletic department budget to BusinessofCollegeSports.com.  What follows is an exclusive, in-depth look into Wisconsin’s revenues and expenses.

Today, Wisconsin’s revenues will be examined.  Tomorrow, BusinessofCollegeSports.com will post Wisconsin’s athletic department expenses for 2010-11. 

The chart below depicts the revenues that Wisconsin reported to both the NCAA and the Department of Education.  As BusinessofCollegeSports.com has previously explained, there are differences in these two reports which account for the different revenues that a school reports to each.  For instance, Wisconsin does not report utilities to the Department of Education, while that number is reported to the NCAA. 

Revenue Revenue Reported to the NCAA Revenue Reported to the DOE
Operating Revenue $80,941,888.00 $80,941,888.00
Capital Revenue $799,792.00 $799,792.00
Big Ten Media (Campus) $2,772,546.00 $2,772,546.00
Coaches Camps & Clinics $1,707,848.00 $1,707,848.00
Adidas Allotment $928,882.00 $928,882.00
UWF Gifts in Kind $332,597.00 $332,597.00
UWF Special Account $1,119,638.00 $1,119,638.00
UWF Other Expenses $286,925.00 $286,925.00
Institutional Support $4,553,901.00 $4,553,901.00
Utilities $2,788,000.00 $0.00
TOTAL $96,232,017.00 $93,444,017.00

As depicted above, the largest source of Wisconsin’s athletic department revenue came from operating revenue.  The following items make-up Wisconsin’s operating revenue:  Ticket sales, revenue received from the Big Ten Conference, gifts in kind, concessions and catering, media revenue, events, post season revenue and “other” (which will be described below).  Below is a snapshot of how much each of these revenue streams contributed to Wisconsin’s overall operating revenue.

Revenue Stream Amount Generated
Ticket Sales $27,333,230.00
Gift Funds $13,861,398.00
Conference $19,664,187.00
Concessions/Catering $6,853,405.00
Multi Media $5,007,040.00
Events $1,081,868.00
Other $4,561,511.00
Post Season $2,579,248

The chart below depicts the amount that Wisconsin teams were able to generate through ticket revenue.  Unsurprisingly, football leads the way.  Perhaps, the most interesting thing to note in this chart, is the great disparity between men’s sports and women’s sports ticket sales.

Team Ticket Revenue
Football $18,285,170.00
Men’s Basketball $5,369,181.00
Men’s Hockey  $3,398,978.00
Women’s Basketball $138,893.00
Volleyball $74,880.00
Women’s Hockey $43,303.00
Varsity Sports $22,825.00

In 2010-11, Wisconsin received $19,664,188.00 in revenue from the Big Ten Conference.   The chart below depicts the amount of revenue Wisconsin received from the Big Ten Conference.

Conference Payout Amount
Big Ten Media $13,903,475.00
Football Bowls $2,493,258.00
Football Tickets ($850,722.00)
NCAA Broad Based $3,286,099.00
Big Ten MBK Tournament $385,574.00
Basketball Tickets ($80,353.00)
Other $526,857.00
TOTAL $19,664,188.00

The “NCAA Broad Based” payout noted above includes payments made by the conference for the NCAA basketball fund distribution (teams earn one unit for each NCAA March Madness game they play in, except for the National Championship; conferences distribute the money derived from these units), sports sponsorship and grants in aid, and any supplemental distributions, if approved.  Additionally, negative numbers are shown for football tickets and basketball tickets.  This is because Big Ten Conference members pay into a ticket pool.  If a school makes over a certain amount in ticket revenue, they pay into the pool.  Schools falling below the ticket revenue amount receive a payout from the Big Ten Conference.   

Next, is a chart depicting the revenue generated by Wisconsin’s advertising ventures.

Advertising Revenue Amount
Learfield/BSP $3,559,814.00
Adidas $460,000.00
Coca-Cola $4,377.00
CR Chairbacks $537,849.00
Other $445,000
TOTAL $5,007,040.00

Wisconsin has an advertising contract with Learfield/BSP.  According to Marnocha, “They do most of the signage around the facilities, radio spots, television spots, etc.  They sell the rights to advertise in our media guides and programs.  They sell the advertising for the big, LED signage that we have in the stadium.”  With respect to the adidas and Coca-Cola amounts, Marnocha notes, “These amounts are part of adidas and Coca-Cola’s contracts with us and they give us a certain amount of money to advertise their products.”  CR Chairbacks refers to Camp Randall Chairbacks, sold for the football stadium. 

With respect to the post season, the chart below highlights Wisconsin’s overall post season revenues.  This amount is for all Wisconsin teams that participated in the post season in 2010-11.  Those teams included:  Football, men’s and women’s basketball, men’s and women’s hockey, men’s and women’s soccer, softball, men’s and women’s swimming, men’s and women’s tennis, volleyball and wrestling.

Post Season Revenue $2,579,248.00

As for catering and concessions, the following chart breaks down how much revenue was generated through catering, events and at specific team’s games:

Concessions and Catering Amount
Catering $2,571,519.00
Football $1,873,729.00
Events $997,117.00
Men’s Basketball $723,244.00
Men’s Hockey $556,843.00
Other Sports $261,009.00

The next chart depicts the revenue that Wisconsin receives from the Big Ten’s media contracts.  One thing to note, is that a significant portion of the amount of money Wisconsin receives from the Big Ten Network is returned to the Wisconsin campus and not used by the athletic department.  Additionally, according to Marnocha, each Big Ten Conference school receives the same Big Ten Network payout each year. 

Big Ten Media Revenue Amount
ABC/ESPN/CBS $8,709,710.00
Big Ten Network $7,894,078.00
Athletic Department Portion from BTN $5,193,765.00
Campus Portion from BTN $2,772,546.00

The portion of “other” revenue depicted in Wisconsin’s operating revenues is composed of the following:

Other Revenue Amount
Licensing $1,320,000.00
Processing Fees $1,383,937.00
Interest Income $35,883.00
Parking $893,018.00
Merchandising $396,109.00
Guarantees $328,000.00
Miscellaneous $204,564.00

Visit BusinessofColllegeSports.com tomorrow to get an inside look into Wisconsin’s athletic department expenses.

Highest Net Income Amongst Athletics Departments

To conclude this week’s series, BusinessofCollegeSports.com will list in order the athletics departments earning the highest net income  in 2010-11.

Issue has been raised by some over the classification of revenue minus expenses in this series as “profit,” since athletics departments are nonprofit organizations.  It should be noted, that in the disclosures to the Department of Education, the athletics departments do not report either profit or net income.  Rather, they report their revenues and expenses.  For this series, profit/net income was calculated by subtracting the total expenses reported from the total revenues reported.

As noted above, the data was obtained from the Department of Education and is for 2010-11.  The data from the Department of Education is by no means perfect.  Throughout this series, net income was calculated by subtracting the “grand total expenses” from the “grand total revenues” that the athletic department reported to the Department of Education.  Expenses in this instance included:  head and assistant coach salaries, athletically related student aid, recruiting expenses, operating (game-day expenses) and “not allocated” expenses.  The expenses faced by athletic departments, however, may be greater than those reported in this snapshot provided by the Department of Education.  For example, an athletic department may have capital expenses outside of those expenses included in the report.  This all being said, this data is the only data publicly available for both public and private institutions.  Thus, it at least provides some insight into athletic department revenues, expenses, and net income before taking into consideration additional expenses, like capital projects.

In 2010-11, 48 athletics departments in BCS AQ conferences generated a positive net income.

School Athletic Department Net Income
Conference
Alabama $31,684,872.00 SEC
Penn State $31,619,687.00 Big Ten
Michigan $26,649,499.00 Big Ten
Texas $24,317,815.00 Big 12
Kansas State $23,395,408.00 Big 12
Notre Dame $19,147,710.00 Big East
Ohio State $18,630,964.00 Big Ten
Oregon $16,433,642.00 Pac-12
Oklahoma State $14,365,376.00 Big 12
Michigan State $13,512,269.00 Big Ten
Arkansas $11,285,623.00 SEC
LSU $10,401,982.00 SEC
Florida $10,056,601.00 SEC
Georgia $9,575,569.00 SEC
Oregon State $954,682.00 Pac-12
Oklahoma $8,064,477.00 Big 12
Purdue $6,773,110.00 Big Ten
Mississippi State $6,306,583.00 SEC
Virginia $6,038,664.00 ACC
Vanderbilt $5,767,543.00 SEC
Iowa $5,296,068.00 Big Ten
Indiana $5,293,816.00 Big Ten
Nebraska $5,170,608.00 Big Ten
Virginia Tech $4,314,760.00 ACC
Louisville $3,952,601.00 Big East
Auburn $3,484,657.00 SEC
Texas A&M $3,224,429.00 Big 12
Texas Tech $3,124,246.00 Big 12
Kentucky $3,122,674.00 SEC
Miami $2,763,826.00 ACC
Washington $2,330,501.00 Pac-12
Illinois $1,815,596.00 Big Ten
Colorado $1,763,633.00 Pac-12
Arizona $1,524,374.00 Pac-12
Utah $1,147,160.00 Pac-12
South Carolina $762,726.00 SEC
Syracuse $717,817.00 Big East
North Carolina $660,231.00 ACC
Wisconsin $655,421.00 Big Ten
Duke $567,207.00 ACC
Maryland $263,711.00 ACC
Clemson $216,318.00 ACC
North Carolina State $192,151.00 ACC
California $181,167.00 Pac-12
Missouri $143,588.00 Big 12
Iowa State $121,686.00 Big 12
Connecticut $94,522.00 Big East
Tennessee $14,447.00 SEC

In previous posts from this series, you’ll remember that every Big Ten athletics department ranked in the top-50 for revenues and expenses.  However, neither Minnesota nor Northwestern achieved a net income above zero.

The conference with the highest percentage of members having a positive net income was the SEC.  All but one SEC member (Ole Miss) generated a positive net income in 2010-11.  The SEC was also home to the athletics department with the highest net income of any BCS AQ school, Alabama.  However, the ten schools generating the greatest net income in 2010-11 are from a mix of conferences.  The only conference not represented in the top-10 is the ACC.

Conference # of Athletics Departments % of Conference
ACC 8 50%
Big 12 8 80%
Big East 4 25%
Big Ten 10 83.33%
Pac-12 7 58.33%
SEC 11 91.60%

Top-50 Largest Athletics Department Spenders

This week, BusinessofCollegeSports.com showed you the revenues, expenses and net income of athletics departments in the BCS AQ conferences.  To conclude this series, BusinessofCollegeSports.com is ranking the top-50 athletics departments with the highest revenues, expenses and net income.  In this installment, we will show you which athletics departments spend the most.

The data was obtained from the Department of Education and is from 2010-11.  While this data is not perfect, it is the only data publicly available for both public and private institutions.

School Athletic Department Expenses Conference
Texas $125,978,117.00 Big 12
Ohio State $113,184,855.00 Big Ten
Florida $112,951,656.00 SEC
Tennessee $102,480,757.00 SEC
Auburn $100,497,784.00 SEC
Oklahoma $96,274,366.00 Big 12
LSU $96,019,689.00 SEC
Michigan $95,836,991.00 Big Ten
Wisconsin $92,939,345.00 Big Ten
Alabama $92,225,560.00 SEC
Iowa $87,607,487.00 Big Ten
Florida State $86,946,503.00 ACC
Penn State $84,498,339.00 Big Ten
Louisville $83,783,719.00 Big East
South Carolina $82,941,941.00 SEC
Georgia $82,765,498.00 SEC
Kentucky $81,755,641.00 SEC
Stanford $81,125,476.00 Pac-12
Arkansas $80,482,490.00 SEC
Minnesota $78,924,683.00 Big Ten
Nebraska $78,509,148.00 Big Ten
USC $75,707,273.00 Pac-12
Notre Dame $75,360,209.00 Big East
Virginia $72,400,342.00 ACC
Texas A&M $71,719,872.00 Big 12
North Carolina $70,709,553.00 ACC
Kansas $70,028,683.00 Big 12
Washington $69,306,426.00 Pac-12
Oregon $67,900,835.00 Pac-12
Michigan State $67,450,913.00 Big Ten
Duke $67,418,981.00 ACC
UCLA $66,003,893.00 Pac-12
Indiana $64,878,825.00 Big Ten
California $64,825,171.00 Pac-12
Boston College $64,078,272.00 ACC
Connecticut $62,948,800.00 Big East
Clemson $60,958,659.00 ACC
Baylor $59,859,235.00 Big 12
Purdue $59,293,193.00 Big Ten
Missouri $58,862,366.00 Big 12
WVU $58,003,719.00 Big East
Miami $57,561,177.00 ACC
Maryland $57,501,307.00 ACC
Virginia Tech $56,762,362.00 ACC
Arizona $56,750,057.00 Pac-12
Northwestern $56,214,293.00 Big Ten
Pittsburgh $56,044,309.00 Big East
Oklahoma State $55,757,830.00 Big 12
Illinois $55,723,771.00 Big Ten
Arizona State $55,378,783.00 Pac-12

While 80 percent of the Big 12’s members ranked in the top-50 in terms of revenue generated, only 70 percent ranked in the top-50 for expenditures.  Thus, it is expected that at least several Big 12 members should generate a net income in the black.  Only four Big East members ranked in the top-50 for revenue generated.  However, five Big East members ranked in the top-5o for expenditures (Pittsburgh did not generate enough revenue to make the top-50 list, but is on the top-50 list for expenditures).  Again, every Big Ten athletics department made the top-50 list for expenditures.

The chart below depicts how many places each conference held in the list and the percentage of the conference which made the list.

Conference # of Athletics Departments % of Conference
ACC 9 75%
Big 12 7 70%
Big East 5 31%
Big Ten 12 100%
Pac-12 8 67%
SEC 9 75%

Top-50 Highest Athletics Department Revenues

This week, BusinessofCollegeSports.com has shown you the revenues, expenses and net income (profit) of athletics departments in the BCS AQ conferences.  To conclude this series, BusinessofCollegeSports.com will rank the top-5o athletics departments with the highest revenues, expenses and net income.  First up is athletics department revenues.

The data was obtained from the Department of Education and is from 2010-11.  While this data is not perfect, it is the only data publicly available for both public and private institutions.

School Athletic Department Revenue Conference
Texas $150,295,932.00 Big 12
Ohio State $131,815,819.00 Big Ten
Alabama $123,910,432.00 SEC
Florida $123,008,257.00 SEC
Michigan $122,486,490.00 Big Ten
Penn State $116,118,026.00 Big Ten
LSU $106,421,671.00 SEC
Oklahoma $104,338,843.00 Big 12
Auburn $103,982,441.00 SEC
Tennessee $102,495,204.00 SEC
Notre Dame $94,507,919.00 Big East
Wisconsin $93,594,766.00 Big Ten
Iowa $92,903,555.00 Big Ten
Georgia $92,341,067.00 SEC
Arkansas $91,768,113.00 SEC
Louisville $87,736,320.00 Big East
Florida State $86,946,503.00 ACC
Oregon $85,740,068.00 Pac-12
Kentucky $84,878,315.00 SEC
South Carolina $83,704,667.00 SEC
Nebraska $83,679,756.00 Big Ten
Stanford $81,125,476.00 Pac-12
Michigan State $80,963,182.00 Big Ten
Minnesota $78,924,683.00 Big Ten
Virginia $78,439,006.00 ACC
USC $75,707,273.00 Pac-12
Texas A&M $74,944,301.00 Big 12
North Carolina $71,369,784.00 ACC
Washington $70,231,336.00 Pac-12
Indiana $70,172,641.00 Big Ten
Oklahoma State $70,123,206.00 Big 12
Kansas $70,028,683.00 Big 12
Kansas State $68,875,266.00 Big 12
Duke $67,986,188.00 ACC
Purdue $66,066,303.00 Big Ten
UCLA $66,003,893.00 Pac-12
California $65,006,338.00 Pac-12
Boston College $64,078,272.00 ACC
Connecticut $63,043,322.00 Big East
Clemson $61,174,977.00 ACC
Virginia Tech $61,077,122.00 ACC
Colorado $60,923,253.00 Pac-12
Miami $60,325,003.00 ACC
Baylor $59,859,235.00 Big 12
Missouri $59,005,954.00 Big 12
Arizona $58,274,431.00 Pac-12
WVU $58,003,719.00 Big East
Maryland $57,765,018.00 ACC
Illinois $57,539,367.00 Big Ten
Northwestern $56,214,293.00 Big Ten

Several things stand out in this list.  First, every Big Ten team made the list.  This is notable, as the SEC is typically viewed as the “power conference” when it comes to all things finance.  The SEC had a great showing in the top-50, but only nine of its twelve athletics departments made the list.  The conference with the least athletics departments on the list was the Big East, which only placed four of its members on the list.

The chart below depicts how many places each conference held in the list.

Conference # of Athletics Departments on List % of Conference
ACC 9 75%
Big 12 8 80%
Big East 4 25%
Big Ten 12 100%
Pac-12 8 67%
SEC 9 75%

Highest Athletic Department Net Income: Big Ten

Next up in BusinessofCollegeSports.com’s investigation into the athletic departments with the highest net income is the Big Ten.  Earlier today, financial data for ACC and Big 12 athletic departments was posted.  Tomorrow, we’ll investigate the Big East, Pac-12 and SEC.  On Wednesday, a list of the athletic departments with the highest net income will be published.

The data was obtained from the Department of Education and is for 2010-11.  The data from the Department of Education is by no means perfect.  Throughout this series, net income was calculated by subtracting the “grand total expenses” from the “grand total revenues” that the athletic department reported to the Department of Education.  Expenses in this instance included:  head and assistant coach salaries, athletically related student aid, recruiting expenses, operating (game-day expenses) and “not allocated” expenses.  The expenses faced by athletic departments, however, may be greater than those reported in this snapshot provided by the Department of Education.  For example, an athletic department may have capital expenses outside of those expenses included in the report.  This all being said, this data is the only data publicly available for both public and private institutions.  Thus, it at least provides some insight into athletic department revenues, expenses, and net income before taking into consideration additional expenses, like capital projects.

School Total Athletic Department Revenue Total Athletic Department Expenses Net Income
Illinois 57,539,367.00 55,723,771.00 1,815,596.00
Indiana 70,172,641.00 64,878,825.00 5,293,816.00
Iowa 92,903,555.00 87,607,487.00 5,296,068.00
Michigan 122,486,490.00 95,836,991.00 26,649,499.00
Michigan State 80,963,182.00 67,450,913.00 13,512,269.00
Minnesota 78,924,683.00 78,924,683.00 0.00
Nebraska 83,679,756.00 78,509,148.00 5,170,608.00
Northwestern 56,214,293.00 56,214,293.00 0.00
Ohio State 131,815,819.00 113,184,855.00 18,630,964.00
Penn State 116,118,026.00 84,498,339.00 31,619,687.00
Purdue 66,066,303.00 59,293,193.00 6,773,110.00
Wisconsin 93,594,766.00 92,939,345.00 655,421.00

In 2010-11, two Big Ten athletic departments turned zero net income:  Minnesota and Northwestern.  Each of these athletic departments, however, generated over $55 million in revenue.

Save for Minnesota, Northwestern and Wisconsin, in 2010-11, every other Big Ten athletic department generated over $1 million in net income.  However, Michigan and Penn State led the way in terms of net income generated.  Michigan generated net income of $26,649,499.00, while Penn State enjoyed a net income of $31,619,687.00.

Interestingly enough, however, is that Ohio State generated the greatest amount of revenue of any Big Ten athletic department.  The Ohio State athletic department generated revenue of $131,815,819.00.  However, Ohio State’s athletic department also had the highest amount of expenses in the conference, at $113,184,855.00.

Which Schools and Conferences Support Multi-Year Scholarships?

Recently, NCAA Division I institutions and their conferences voted on whether to overturn a measure enacted by the NCAA Board of Directors in October 2011 which allowed Division I institutions to offer student-athletes multi-year scholarships.  The effort to overturn the measure was narrowly defeated.  Of those eligible to vote, 125 voted to uphold the measure, 205 voted to overturn it, 2 abstained and 35 did not cast votes.  To overturn the measure, 5/8 of those voting (or, 62.5 percent) were required to vote in favor of overturning the measure.  Thus, the vote to overturn the measure was short by 0.38 percent of votes.

Given how close Division I institutions came to overturning the right to offer multi-year scholarships, one may wonder how votes were split on the issue.  First, consider those BCS automatic qualifying conferences and schools which voted to continue to allow Division I institutions to offer multi-year scholarships:

BCS AQ Conferences & Schools Voting to Allow Multi-Year Scholarships
Arizona State
Atlantic Coast Conference
Auburn
Big East Conference
Big Ten Conference
UCLA
Connecticut

DePaul

Duke
Florida
Georgetown
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Maryland
Miami
Michigan
Michigan State
Minnesota
Mississippi
Mississippi State
Missouri
Nebraska
North Carolina State
Northwestern
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Oregon
Oregon State
Pac-12
Penn State
Pittsburgh
Purdue
South Carolina
Southeastern Conference
Stanford

UCLA

USF

Utah
Vanderbilt
Villanova
Wake Forest
Washington
Washington State

Most notably, the only BCS AQ Conference which voted to overturn the multi-year scholarship measure was the Big 12.  The ACC, Big Ten, Big East, Pac-12 and SEC conferences, on the other hand, all voted in favor to continue allowing schools to offer multi-year scholarships.  The only Big 12 member to vote to uphold the multi-year scholarship measure was Missouri.  However, it should be noted that Missouri will join the SEC later this year.  Many of the SEC’s member institutions voted similarly to continue to allow multi-year scholarships.

Of those 125 conferences and schools voting to allow schools to offer multi-year scholarships, 36.8 percent were BCS automatic qualifying conferences or schools.  This is a significant number, especially when considering that the majority of schools casting a vote on the issue were non-BCS AQ schools.  It further demonstrates that a majority of BCS AQ institutions are in favor of granting multi-year scholarships.  This is important, as whether a school offers multi-year scholarships may greatly affect recruiting and athletic department budgets going forward.

Next, consider which BCS AQ conferences and schools voted to overturn the NCAA’s measure allowing multi-year scholarships:

BCS Conferences and Schools Voting to Disallow Multi-Year Scholarships
Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

Baylor

Big 12
Boston College

California-Berkeley

Cincinnati
Clemson
Colorado
Florida State
Georgia Tech
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
LSU
Louisville
Marquette
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State

Providence

Rutgers

USC
St. John’s
Tennessee
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
Texas
Virginia

Virginia Tech

WVU
Wisconsin

Of the 205 conferences and schools which voted to override the NCAA’s measure allowing schools to offer multi-year scholarships, only 25 were BCS AQ conferences and schools.  Thus, BCS AQ conferences and schools only accounted for 15.6 percent of those wishing to disallow multi-year scholarships.  Most interesting, however, is that the Big 12 and its member institutions accounted for 31.25 percent of the BCS AQ schools and conferences voting to disallow multi-year scholarships.

The question to be raised given these numbers is, what competitive disadvantage does the Big 12 believe it faces if multi-year scholarships are allowed to be granted?  Opponents of the multi-year scholarship measure have made the reasons as to why they do not support the measure clear.  First, granting multi-year scholarships binds schools and athletic departments to student-athletes who may not be able to perform up to required standards either on the field or in the classroom.  Additionally, granting multi-year scholarships may impose a greater financial burden on athletic department budgets and may provide those schools offering multi-year scholarships with a recruiting advantage over those which do not offer multi-year scholarships. 

These factors may have been relevant in the Big 12 voting in large measure to not support multi-year scholarships.  In 2010-11, the Big 12 only had one school (Texas) which broke into the top-10 in terms of its recruitment expenses.  Likewise, in terms of the top-50 most profitable NCAA programs, the Big 12 once again only placed one of its teams (Texas football) into the top-10.  Given these factors, it is likely that the Big 12’s largest concern with offering multi-year scholarships rested upon a cost-benefit analysis of the measure, and what its teams would be able to offer budgetary-wise in terms of multi-year scholarships.

One thing is certain:  because NCAA Division I institutions and conferences voted to uphold allowing multi-year scholarships, it will be interesting to see the recruiting advantages those schools offering them receive going forward.

Grading This Year’s Coaching Hires (Part 1)

With the detailed information on the finances of college sports you receive here at businessofcollegesports.com, it should come as no surprise that BCS football programs are not “fun and games” or “just sports” to administrators and athletic departments. The difference between a winning and a losing football program on a school’s budget is pronounced. Thus, the difference between making the right or wrong coaching hire is as well.

The SEC is one conference, by and large, that has hired the right coaches and those coaches have succeeded. Among 2011 coaching salaries, six SEC coaches rank among the top 11 in the country in compensation (Saban, Miles, Petrino, Richt, Chizik, Muschamp, with Urban Meyer preceding him in high compensation rank). Those coaches have not only led SEC teams to six straight national titles, but those crystal balls, the television contracts, and national reputation of the conference have in turn led to six SEC mens athletic programs with recruiting budgets in excess of one million dollars annually for the 2010-2011 academic years. Success begets success begets even more success.

Yes, one can easily argue the SEC’s unprecedented run of success began with great hires. Hiring the right man is the challenge that faced 13 BCS conference schools this offseason. The coaching climate today is a harsh one. Patience is a word lost in among an administration’s vernacular. The days of the five-year plan are long gone. Turner Gill lost his desk nameplate after just two seasons in Lawrence, Kansas, and 27 out of 120 FBS schools (22.5%) made coaching changes this offseason.

Therefore, it’s only natural I provide you with my hit and miss predictions for each of the 13 BCS schools who have hired a new coach for 2012. A second opinion is provided by friend and fellow sports media colleague, Brent Beaird.

13. Todd Graham – Arizona State

Analysis: Where or where have our principles ventured off to? Used to be that we valued honor and commitment. Yet when a man (term used loosely) like Todd Graham is able to climb the collegiate ranks, one wonders what has happened to “The Golden Rule.” Yes, I’m fully aware that Graham led Rice, a perennial doormat, Rice, to a 7-6 record in 2006. That his 36-17 mark at Tulsa was a marginal uptick over Steve Kragthorpe’s 29-22 in the four years prior there, and finally that his 6-6 standing at Pitt this past season did little to under or overwhelm. Yet I must wonder aloud about the quality of the message we’re sending the very young people that Graham is supposed to be mentoring. What’s being conveyed is that in life, you win at all costs, that you may break protocol if it suits you, that one can show not an ounce of gratitude and/or loyalty yet still find promotion around every corner. Here’s a coach who left Rice only a few days after being rewarded with an extension and a significant raise, who left Pitt after but one season via a text to an assistant coach, who then had to relay the impersonal communication method to the players. I struggle not to stoop to name calling when discussing Graham. I’ve often been told, “You get what you give.” That said, perhaps the nation’s most notorious party school and Todd Graham are a perfect fit. Grade: F   Rank: 13/13.

Brent’s Second Opinion: Todd Graham of Arizona State-Graham has a lot of trust to build after leaving two schools in a six-year period after only one year Grade: (D+) Rank: 13/13

12. Bill O’Brien – Penn State University

Analysis: A hearty congratulations is in order to Bill O’Brien,  former offensive coordinator of the New England Patriots, for he has managed to significantly out kick his coverage. To use an all-too common analogy, O’Brien represents the “average joe” who just landed a supermodel. Upon witnessing a couple such as this walk into an establishment, everyone in the place is thinking the same thing – “There goes a guy who owns a plane.” But I’m not here to hate. It could work out for the “We Are Penn State-ers” in Happy Valley. I’m just not sure that it will. Penn State managed to find itself in the tenuous position of a “grass is always greener dumper,” failing to realize what it had until it was gone, then in total desperation, accepting the first smiling face that took a flier. This past season, O’Brien was seen throwing a sideline temper tantrum at “The Franchise,” Tom Brady, one in which Brady took the high road but O’Brien’s reputation never fully recovered from. And while his 14 years as an assistant and an offensive coordinator in the college ranks don’t leave his resume bare, of all offensive coordinators either active or inactive with four plus years of experience dating back to 2001, only three have engineered offenses that averaged fewer than 30 points per game.  Grade: D+   Rank: 13/14

Brent’s Second Opinion: Bill O’Brien of Penn State-Don’t forget he had 14 years of experience at Georgia Tech, Maryland and Duke. Grade:(C)   Rank: 10/13.

11. Tim Beckman – Illinois

Analysis: In the landscape of college football today, seemingly every “have not” football program treks across the desert looking for the next Urban Meyer. And without fail, at introductory press conferences, athletic and PR departments do a yeoman’s job convincing you they’ve found him. For me to offer the full-fledged “Beckman Buy-In,” however, I need a more thorough body of work than what presently appears on Beckman’s resume:

  • All of three years of head coaching experience at Toledo.
  • A record of 21-16, leaving before the bowl game in ’11.
  • Offenses that averaged 33ppg, defenses that gave up 32.

It is the opinion of the author that the MAC and their intra-conference competition provides a level playing field among the 13 member institutions. Therefore, an average coach should win as many as he loses in this league. Beckman’s three-year mark does little to move the proverbial needle, although if one can look past the small sample size, 16-9 in the final two campaigns does offer some hope. Whether Beckman can achieve success in a conference with the history and prestige of the Big 10 is an entirely different and unanswered question. Grade: C   Rank: 11/14

Brent’s Second Opinion: Tim Beckman of Illinois-Beckman has valuable coaching experience as the head man at Toledo and from working with Meyer at Bowling Green Grade:  (B-)   Rank:8/13.

Marc Ryan is a sports talk radio personality in the Florida Panhandle. You can follow him on Twitter: @marcryanonair.

Division I Athletics Departments’ Social Media Policies

It seems like almost weekly that a story arises about a coach banning players’ use of social media websites or about student-athletes making controversial remarks on websites like Twitter.  Given the commonality of these stories in this social media age, BusinessofCollegeSports.com reached out to numerous Division I athletics departments to learn what type of social media policies their departments have adopted.  The following demonstrates how some of the top athletic departments in the nation are allowing their student-athletes to utilize social media.

School

Athletics Department Allows Use of Social Media

Teams Restricting Social Media Use

Insider’s Notes

Arizona

Yes

None.

Arizona’s Director of Athletics Greg Byrne said, “Student-athletes must register their accounts with our compliance department.  We talk with them regularly about what they post.”

Boise State

Yes

Football student-athletes are not allowed to use Twitter and are told to make their Facebook accounts private. Boise State’s Assistant Athletic Director of Media Relations Max Corbet said, “There is not a department policy.  It is pretty much left up to each individual head coach.”

Florida State

Yes

None.

FSU’s Assistant Athletic Director/Sports Information Director Elliott Finebloom said, “We try to educate [student-athletes] on the positives and negatives of engaging in various social media platforms.

Georgia

Yes

None.

Georgia’s Assistant Sports Communication Director Kate Burkholder said, “Our feeling on this is that we make it as clear as possible that they are accountable for what they share, and they shouldn’t make any comments they wouldn’t make if they were getting interviewed on SportsCenter.  This year our media training team (outside company) incorporated a lot of social media etiquette into their lesson.  Every team goes through this training regardless of the level of exposure the team receives.  Any further policies are left up to the coaches, but generally speaking, our policy is to educate and monitor rather than to ban.

Houston

Yes

None.

Kansas

Yes

While individual coaches are allowed to determine whether their student-athletes can use social media, none have prevented their student-athletes from using social media. Kansas’ Associate Athletics Director for Communications and Media Relations Jim Marchiony said, “Kansas Athletics has a general student-athlete policy regarding how individuals are expected to present the university. . . Student-athletes’ use of social media falls under our general student-athlete conduct policies.”

North Carolina

While the athletics department adopted a “Use of Social Networking Policy” last year, it encourages the use of social media by its student-athletes. In 2010, football coach Butch Davis banned the use of Twitter when UNC was under NCAA investigation.  However, new football coach Larry Fedora is not banning the use of Twitter.As of two weeks ago, women’s basketball coach Sylvia Hatchell banned the use of Twitter so that her team can focus on basketball. UNC’s Associate Athletic Director for Communications said, “We have a policy that was put into place last year, the Use of Social Networking Policy.  There are guidelines and a monitoring component.  Each sport has a designated coach or administrator who monitors social media.  Each student-athlete who wishes to participate in social media, which we encourage, has to accept the monitor as a friend on Facebook, or the monitor must follow them on Twitter.

Ohio State

Yes

Each sport sets its own social media guidelines. Ohio States’ Associate Athletics Director for Communications Dan Wallenberg said, “Our student-athletes are not restricted from using social media, however each team has the discretion to establish rules and penalties as they see fit.”

Oklahoma

Yes

None.

Oklahoma’s Assistant Director for Communications said, “We allow our student-athletes to participate in social media.  Our coaches do not have a ban on them.”

Oklahoma State

Each sport sets its own social media guidelines. One Oklahoma State coach (unidentified by the university) doesn’t allow student-athletes to use social media. Oklahoma State’s Associate Athletic Director for Media Relations Kevin Klintworth said, “Our policies vary between programs.  We have one coach that doesn’t allow social media at all.  Most of them do as long as coaches are “friends” or “followers.”

South Carolina

Yes

Certain teams restrict student-athletes’ use of social media.  Last season, Coach Spurrier didn’t allow the football team to use Twitter during the season so they could focus on football.  Players were allowed to resume use after the season. South Carolina’s Media Relations Director Steve Fink said, “We aim to educate [student-athletes] with guidelines and tips for using these sites wisely.”

TCU

Yes

None.

TCU’s Assistant Athletics Director for Media Relations Mark Cohen said, “TCU student-athletes are permitted to use Facebook and Twitter.  Each sport at TCU sets its own social media guidelines.  No sports at TCU have banned the use of Facebook or Twitter.”

USC

Yes

None.

USC’s Sports Information Director Tim Tessalone said, “We work hard to educate [student-athletes and coaches] on the proper use of social media.”

Wisconsin

Yes

Each sport sets its own social media guidelines.  However, no coach has banned the use of social media by student-athletes. Wisconsin’s Director of Athletic Communications Brian Lucas said, “I know that Coach Bielema [football] deals with his players on a case-by-case basis.  If he has an issue with something a student-athlete has posted, he deals with the student-athlete one-on-one as opposed to imposing limitations on the team.