I thought this was a pretty interesting article on how profitable the athletic departments of the various SEC schools were from 2010-11 (aTm & MIzzou not included):

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2012/03/20/most-profitable-athletic-departments-sec/


[This message has been edited by Bamatab (edited 3/22/2012 10:57a).]

Ole Miss $48,916,161.00 $48,916,161.00 $0.00

That's probably not right.

I don't know that I would spend 50 mill in hopes to make 1-2 million.
That is a lot of risk.

Hardly any of the numbers that get reported about athletic department revenues are correct, and always have been.

The expenditure portion is likely close to accurate, though.

It's little wonder why Florida fields nationally competitive teams in almost every sport that it competes in.




[This message has been edited by kaput (edited 3/21/2012 10:26a).]

Tennessee

reminds me of my wife....

A few observations:

Easy to see why Vandy, Ole Miss and MSU have trouble winning championships as consistently as their peers. Not enough money.

FL and Bama are in the drivers seat. Though FL's program is more well rounded than Bama's as they do better in hoops and baseball. But you can't argue with Bama's success in football and that is the sport that matters most.

KY pours their money into hoops and it shows, both in hoops and their lack of success in football. SC does a pretty good job for their amount of funds. Tenn is probably the biggest underperformer, which is due to coaching problems in their big 4 sports.

Easy to see why the SEC is the best conference and wins lots of national titles in the Big 3 men's sports. They have the money. A&M will have to step up our game several notches or else we will be an also-ran in the SEC.

We are going to need a lot more money. Which is tough to get to Bama/FL level without naming rights and our student seating situation. Both of which are sacred cows.

One thing that came to my mind when I looked at Bama's numbers was the rumor that was floating around that tu was going to steal Saban from us for $10 mil. If our AD is making over $31mil (or in that range) in profit, why would anyone not believe that Bama wouldn't match it? We could spend that $10 mil and still lead the SEC in profitability. And it's not like Bama has been known to be stingy when it comes to financing their football program.

Isn't Bama highly leveraged (millions and millions of bond debt)?

I've never heard of Bama being in any kind of debt. You'll have to show a link to that one.

Profitability isn't the name of the game, outstanding facilities and programs are. Revenue is what it's about.

Consider the following about UF's athletic program (this was written a week ago, I think):

quote:

---

Men's indoor track & field = national champions.
Baseball is number one.
Gymnastics is number one.
Women's tennis number two.
Women's swim & dive team is number two.
Men's outdoor track & field is number three.
Softball is number three.
Lacrosse is number five.
Women's track & field is number seven.
Men's swim & dive is number seven.
Men's tennis is number nine.
Women's gold is number 16.
Men's basketball is number 19.
Men's golf is number 23.

Women's basketball is currently the only sport not ranked (but won a game in the NCAA tournament).

---

THAT is consistency.

quote:

---

We are going to need a lot more money. Which is tough to get to Bama/FL level without naming rights and our student seating situation. Both of which are sacred cows.

---

THIS!

being the AD here has got to suck. Your constituents want the highest level of winning but won't let you make any changes to get the money to do so. They want the money to just magically appear out of the air so that we can continue to let millions of dollars go by letting students have the best seats in the house for pennies on the dollar.

quote:

---

Revenue is what it's about.

---

Here is a link to the top 50 AD revenues throughout college football: http://businessofcollegesports.com/2012/03/21/top-50-highest-athletics-department-revenues/

quote:

---

Men's indoor track & field = national champions.
Baseball is number one.
Gymnastics is number one.
Women's tennis number two.
Women's swim & dive team is number two.
Men's outdoor track & field is number three.
Softball is number three.
Lacrosse is number five.
Women's track & field is number seven.
Men's swim & dive is number seven.
Men's tennis is number nine.
Women's gold is number 16.
Men's basketball is number 19.
Men's golf is number 23.

Women's basketball is currently the only sport not ranked (but won a game in the NCAA tournament).

---

The football team also IS NOT ranked!

And football is the cash cow. How long will the megabucks keep coming in if UF keeps pumping out 7-6 seasons?

Bama is highly regarded in sports right now because their football team is dominant and that is the sport most fans pay attention to. Most fans don't know how bad they suck in baseball, nor do they care. And baseball is the #3 or #4 most popular college sport.

How you do in gym, swim, tennis, track, golf, etc doesn't matter to most fans. And that holds true in media exposure and in money. Football and Men's basketball are the 2 sports that matter most.

So even though I keep up with a lot of sports, I know that I'm in the minority. And even myself, who is a fairly diversified college sports enthusiast, would not spend the kind of money I spend on football on any other sport. I'm not paying $100/ticket to go watch basketball or baseball (and I love baseball) and certainly not any of the minor sports.

Just keeping it real.

[This message has been edited by JeffHamilton82 (edited 3/21/2012 12:23p).]

You don't really think UF's football team is going to routinely go 7-6, do you? They've won more games than any other program in the nation since 1990, and that type of winning isn't going to suddenly stop.

The state of Florida is eat up with high school talent and the University of Florida is as committed to gridiron excellence as anyone in the country. Couple those facts with the fact that UF will spend whatever it takes to get the job done and it's easy to see where the future goes.

You literally have to be stupid to think that UF is going to be more like Ole Miss than what they've been for the last couple of decades. And that's just a fact.

muschamp may be the next ron zook but a school like Fla. will can a guy for winning 7-8 games after three years limiting the damage they do to program overall.

quote:

---

You don't really think UF's football team is going to routinely go 7-6, do you? They've won more games than any other program in the nation since 1990, and that type of winning isn't going to suddenly stop.

---

I remember Aggies crowing about our record in the 90's and using that as a crutch. The past doesn't guarantee the future. Muschump could run your program in the ground. My good friend andneighbor who both he and his wife graduated from UF is afriad of that (Muschamp ruining the program).

Anyway you missed my point. You took my post personal and I'm all business. My point was those minor sports don't matter much. Not to most people at least. Football drives the bus. And that is why Bama is viewed favorably right now. Kentucky is also getting some pub from their hoops.

But not many care that we won women's hoops last year or SC won the last 2 baseball titles, much less that we won the last 3 men's AND women's outdoor track titles. Those sports just don't register on the radar. So you listing them and citing "consistency" just shows how out-of-touch you are with the marketplace. It's your way of covering up UF's current deficiency in football and basketball. 5 or so years ago, ya'll dominated both the major sports!!

Aggie fans often cite the minor sports to cover our lack of success in the major sports. And while I appreciate the national titles we have won recently, it doesn't change the reality of the marketplace.

Colleg sports is business. So don't take my post personally.

We are doing something very, very wrong if our revenue is that much lower than Arkansas! Look at the population and student body of Arkansas compared to our numbers. Then add the fact that its hard for folks to actually get to the Arkansas campus way up in the northwest corner of the state, whereas we're very convenient to Houston, Austin, and San Antonio, and not too bad a drive from DFW.

For God's sake, we make less revenue than Louisville!

If our revenue does not rise pretty quickly to the Auburn/Tennessee range, we're going to be a door mat in the SEC.

Bamatab - thanks for the revenue link. Should be a wakeup call to Aggies to the uphill climb we face. We are 27th in the country in revenues. We were 3rd in the Big 12 (but close to OSU, ku and ksu); yet we will be 10th in the SEC!

Buck - Arkansas gets more money from the SEC than we do from the Big 12 and they don't set aside 30,000 prime seats for students at $225/seat. We lose a lot of revenue there. They also renamed their football stadium for Don Reynolds when he donated $20MM when they expanded from 51,000 to 72,000.

So A&M would be 10th in the SEC in terms of revenue using most recent numbers of $74 million.

I agree with JeffHamilton.

The real sea change between A&M and tu athletics occurred when they decided their AD was a business and ran it like one.

We didn't even attempt anything like that until almost 20 years later when we hired Byrne. Even then there is still an institutional mindset that will have to change (I think it is to some extent) if A&M is going to live up to its potential as an athletic power.

quote:

---

I remember Aggies crowing about our record in the 90's and using that as a crutch. The past doesn't guarantee the future.

---

A&M hasn't won a national title since 1927, UF has three since 1996. A&M's success in the 90's isn't anywhere close to what UF has experienced over the last twenty plus year, it's not remotely close.

quote:

---

Muschump could run your program in the ground. My good friend andneighbor who both he and his wife graduated from UF is afriad of that (Muschamp ruining the program).

---

Foley would never let it happen. He might not be the guy to bring more titles to Gainesville, but he's not going to get a string of mediocre season's to turn it around. If he struggles in '12, he might not make it out of '13. A lot of people have wanted to compare Zook to Muschamp, and while I think it's bad comparison in many respects, look what happened after Zook.

quote:

---

Anyway you missed my point.

---

No I didn't, you're just wrong in your assumption that UF will (or could) struggle for an extended period of time.

quote:

---

So you listing them and citing "consistency" just shows how out-of-touch you are with the marketplace. It's your way of covering up UF's current deficiency in football and basketball. 5 or so years ago, ya'll dominated both the major sports!!

---

Not at all, it's something to be proud of. And UF's basketball program made the Elite 8 last season and are still alive this year (with what I think is a pretty good bracket ahead of them). Two straight Sweet 16's is nothing to shake a stick at.

quote:

---

Colleg sports is business. So don't take my post personally.

---

I didn't take it personally, you were just wrong. Now don't take that personally.

quote:

---

Foley would never let it happen. He might not be the guy to bring more titles to Gainesville, but he's not going to get a string of mediocre season's to turn it around. If he struggles in '12, he might not make it out of '13. A lot of people have wanted to compare Zook to Muschamp, and while I think it's bad comparison in many respects, look what happened after Zook.

---

Fla. doesn't **** around. Muschamp needs to have them at 9 more wins in the next year or two, or he is Zooked. He is recruiting well enough that he will probably leave a lot of talent for the next coach if that happens.

I think tu will be similar. The coach after Brown is going to get 2-3 years max to get (or keep) them to the 9 or more wins a season pace. The floor may be 10 wins as cowtv puts a lot of pressure on the football program to be really good.

Agreed.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway you missed my point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No I didn't, you're just wrong in your assumption that UF will (or could) struggle for an extended period of time.

---

Yes, you did miss my point, which was about the relative importance of each college sport.

And I did not make the assumption that UF football would struggle. They certainly could as they struggled for years prior to Spurrier's arrival. But I made no assumption. I asked what you thought would happen to their revenues if they did struggle in football. That is not an assumption, that is a question.

Reading comprehension 101.

And you can see where another poster has agreed with me. He can comprehend what he reads. Quit being defensive about UF and look at this thread objectively. I've taken plenty of shots at my alma mater in this thread. Again, it is not personal, it's business. Take your emotion out of it anf use only logic and facts.

And to reiterate, my only point is that football drives the bus and listing all the accomplishments in minor sports doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Thanks for your list, but it doesn't matter. And that's not my opinon, that is a fact proven in the marketplace. And I don't control the market, I'm just reporting the facts of it.

Did I disagree that football was the primary bread winner? (No is the answer, by the way.)

My broader point is that sports are important to UF and its culture. Showing the other sports wasn't an attempt to cover up the fact that UF has been to six straight January bowl games (wait, what?).

7-6 isn't tolerable for UF, the sporting culture simply won't allow it.

It's not about being defensive, rather it's being realistic about how UF approaches its athletic program.

[This message has been edited by kaput (edited 3/21/2012 2:02p).]

quote:

---

A&M's success in the 90's isn't anywhere close

---

As far as wins go I think you're incorrect.

i.e. Florida averaged 10 wins a year and A&M averaged 9.

Florida had a terrible football program for most of the history of the SEC. The FIRST EVER conference championship that they were allowed to keep was 1991 (they won in '84 and had it taken away).

Things change for better and worse. UF had a great run from '91 through '00. One decade does not make a permanent dynasty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Southeastern_Conference_champions#Southeastern_Conference

Would any of you trade A&M's past two-plus decades for UF's? Not a chance. UF won a title in '96 and played for another, how many did A&M win or play for in the 90's? How's about the new century?

Florida's rise to power has had more to do with the fact that high school football really emerged in that state in the late 70's/early 80's as opposed to anything that UF, FSU or Miami actually did. That's an advantage that's not going away. (Hell, I wish I could claim that UF outsmarted the room but the truth is the demographics of the state have played a massive role in the success.)

[This message has been edited by kaput (edited 3/21/2012 4:13p).]

quote:

---

A&M hasn't won a national title since 1927, UF has three since 1996. A&M's success in the 90's isn't anywhere close to what UF has experienced over the last twenty plus year, it's not remotely close.

---

Did 1939 get axed from the Historical Budget? ?_?

The encouraging part about the numbers is A&M's actually not that far behind the mid-pack SEC schools, and we'll be getting a bit of a boost here shortly. We've had tons of success all over the place recently, it just hasn't shown up in the place we all want it to: football.

Arkansas (Fayetteville, specifically) is not nearly as hard to get to nowadays as it was 20 years ago. It's just a good ways from most other points in the state.
So, distance is still a little bit of an issue (but not as much as EXPENSE is), but even time spent getting there has been reduced, I think.

The relatively new Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport was a nice upgrade over the old facility.
And a new highway was built through there just within the past decade or so, eliminating some of the hairpin twists and turns (and sheer dropoffs) of the old 'Pig Trail' that you used to have to travel to get into Fayetteville.

Getting in and out has improved considerably in the last few years.
The cost of buying tickets for numerous people and finding affordable hotel/motel rooms overnight (or finding any rooms at all) is the more often heard gripe these days.

[This message has been edited by Razorback Russ (edited 3/21/2012 8:49p).]

bamatab, here's your link:



SEC leader in debt. Is it bad? Not necessarily, especially in a cash cow like Alabama's case. But it is there.

Hookers and blow ain't free!

"Florida's rise to power has had more to do with the fact that high school football really emerged in that state in the late 70's/early 80's as opposed to anything that UF, FSU or Miami actually did. That's an advantage that's not going away. (Hell, I wish I could claim that UF outsmarted the room but the truth is the demographics of the state have played a massive role in the success.)"

Sure, that's a big part. But UF, FSU and Miami are all down compared to where thery were in the 90's. The Florida talent didn't disappear. So, it seems really good coaching helped, and losing Spurrier, then Meyer were major setbacks IMO.

quote:

---

Isn't Bama highly leveraged (millions and millions of bond debt)?

---

I think a lot of the big programs are like this especially in the midst of facilities/expansion wars.

I am pretty sure tu has 9 figures worth of bond debt related mostly to dkr expansion.