|
Post by Gorf on Dec 8, 2005 14:44:59 GMT -5
I believe they do IB, they supposedly include all revenue and expenses for the various programs.
Which is somewhat why the "big name" programs for football continue to get richer and richer and can still reflect a profit even while spending many millions on new or expanded stadiums while the smaller programs have to scratch and claw their way through funding to get those types of things done.
|
|
|
Post by beachman on Dec 8, 2005 14:51:15 GMT -5
Those numbers assuredly do not include booster contributions, either, do they? As far as I know, they do not include booster monies. I suspect that a big part of these numbers have to do with travel
|
|
|
Post by GatorVball on Dec 8, 2005 14:51:41 GMT -5
I recently read where Ohio State has the largest budget in the nation, close to $90 million. I think Texas was #2 and schools like Tennessee, Michigan and Florida were all in the 60-70 million range. While having a big budget is great, what really helps the most are the endowments. In that category, no one comes close to Stanford. The numbers are a couple years old, but that's the most recent I could find. It's no wonder Stanford has won the Sears Cup for like a gazillion years in a row. They have the funds to build the best facilities, hire the best coaches and attract the top athletes in virtually every sport. Most of the schools on this list are very good across the board in all sports.
THE TOP 10
The biggest athletic endowments among selected major universities, 2002- 2003 academic year:
School Endowment
1. Stanford $270 million
2. Notre Dame $130 million
3. North Carolina $106 million
4. USC $100 million
5. Duke $63 million
6. Texas A&M $45 million
7. Virginia $35 million
8. Michigan $31.7 million
9. Cal $30 million
10. Florida $24.1 million
|
|
|
Post by beachman on Dec 8, 2005 14:54:44 GMT -5
Beachman, where is the link to that list? I have it on my other computer and I will get it tonight and post it on this thread so all can look at it. It is really interesting for sure! I was blown away by the wide range of monies spent between programs knowing that most have the same number of coaches(and pay ranges are NOT that diverse) and they all have the same number of scholarships. Travel has to be a major component and for those schools like Nebraska who travel on the private school plane their travel costs would be astronomical compared to a school that traveled commercially!
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Dec 8, 2005 14:55:02 GMT -5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2002-03 NCAA Revenues and Expenses of Divisions I and II Intercollegiate Athletics Programs Report
This report provides summary information concerning revenues and expenses of NCAA Divisions I and II intercollegiate athletics programs for the 2002-03 fiscal year. It is the result of a survey conducted during the fall of 2003.
Similar studies have been conducted for the NCAA since 1969, with resulting reports published under the same title in 1970, 1978, 1982, 1986, 1990, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2002. Comparative numbers for the 1992-93, 1994-95, 1996-97, 1998-99 and 2000-01 fiscal years are provided, as are selected numbers for 1984-85 and 1988-89, when appropriate and meaningful. A corresponding report has been published for NCAA Division III institutions and is available on the NCAA Web site (www.ncaa.org).
The primary objective of the 2002-03 edition of Revenues and Expenses of Intercollegiate Athletics Programs Report is to update the information in the previous reports concerning financial aspects of intercollegiate athletics programs.
A second objective of the report is to provide an analysis of the revenue and expense trends of athletics programs within each of the respective NCAA divisions. A third objective of the report is to provide data relevant to gender issues.
The 2002-03 survey was distributed to all 1,034 NCAA member institutions, including provisional members. Responses from 916 members were utilized in the database, representing 89 percent of the total membership. In all cases, respondents were clearly instructed to limit their responses to intercollegiate athletics only, excluding intramural and club sports. These financial data were solicited in conjunction with the gathering of information relative to the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA). The financial data requested included: total revenues and expenses by program (men’s and women’s); total revenues and expenses by sport; total revenues by source (such as ticket sales, student fees and television receipts); and total expenses by expense object (such as grants-in-aid, salaries and travel).
The survey also obtained organizational data, such as the number of participating student-athletes, the number of sports offered, the cost of grants-in-aid, and other similar information. The financial information in this report is classified and presented in detail by division.
Findings indicate the percent increases in average total revenue were substantial while the percent increases in average total expenses were not as high. Thus, revenues appear to have increased more rapidly than expenses in all divisions. However, the average deficit continues to grow for schools in all divisions. The much discussed gap between the financially profitable Division I-A schools and the loss schools grew only slightly while in Division I-AA the data indicated a larger gap between the financial “haves” and “have-nots.” While ticket sales remain the primary source of revenue for Division I-A schools, student fees were a much more significant revenue source in the other divisions.
Finally, in all divisions, the two expense categories of salaries and benefits and student-athlete grants-in-aid accounted for at least half of total operating expenditures.
|
|
|
Post by Alberta on Dec 8, 2005 14:55:03 GMT -5
With all that money that Florida has, can't they help me out a little with tuition?
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Dec 8, 2005 14:58:00 GMT -5
Those numbers assuredly do not include booster contributions, either, do they? As far as I know, they do not include booster monies. I suspect that a big part of these numbers have to do with travel The NCAA data is supposed to reflect all revenues and expenses. Though, that said it is up to the schools to report the data honestly so they don't absolutely have to report revenue from sources such as booster clubs even though they're supposedly supposed to report it in their report to the NCAA.
|
|
|
Post by norwis on Dec 8, 2005 16:38:45 GMT -5
Can you guys post links to all these sights please?
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Dec 8, 2005 17:00:49 GMT -5
Travel has to be a major component and for those schools like Nebraska who travel on the private school plane their travel costs would be astronomical compared to a school that traveled commercially! Over the long haul owning is cheaper than renting especially if the scale is large enough. If Nebraska owns a couple jets to fly teams around, and that cost can be shared and paid down by the collective programs in the institution, wouldn't they reach a point at which they would be essentially flying for the cost of fuel and cabin/crew, whereas Delta is going to also roll in the cost of their infrastructure (the plane itself) to your fare?
|
|
|
Post by beachman on Dec 8, 2005 20:36:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by GatorVball on Dec 8, 2005 20:49:13 GMT -5
Florida has a lot of money to spend, so the numbers don't surprise me. They make sure their coaches and athletes, in all sports, get the first class treatment and get everything they need, to be successful.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Dec 8, 2005 20:54:12 GMT -5
It doesn't surprise me either. Hawaii has to rely on profits from volleyball to make up the deficits of the other athletic departments. Can't run in the light red when you spend all the profits.
|
|
|
Post by Pirate VB Fan on Dec 8, 2005 23:21:19 GMT -5
While having a big budget is great, what really helps the most are the endowments. In that category, no one comes close to Stanford. The numbers are a couple years old, but that's the most recent I could find. I am not sure where you found your numbers or if you were only looking at the increase in one year, or just the sports specific endownment, but your numbers, if they are meant to represent the total university endowment are way off. The Stanford endowment is about $9.9 BIllion (yes, with a B). That is good for only fourth place and is $12.6 Billion less than first place Harvard (Yale and Princeton are 2 and 3). The University of Texas system is $9.36 Billion and UT-Austin itself is $2.2B. TAMU is $3.3B. One third of the income from the Permanent Fund (the UT System endowment) goes to TAMU and the other 2/3 is split amoung the 15 UT schools with the largest share going to UT-Austin. (2004 figures)
|
|
|
Post by GatorVball on Dec 8, 2005 23:36:25 GMT -5
While having a big budget is great, what really helps the most are the endowments. In that category, no one comes close to Stanford. The numbers are a couple years old, but that's the most recent I could find. I am not sure where you found your numbers or if you were only looking at the increase in one year, or just the sports specific endownment, but your numbers, if they are meant to represent the total university endowment are way off. The Stanford endowment is about $9.9 BIllion (yes, with a B). That is good for only fourth place and is $12.6 Billion less than first place Harvard (Yale and Princeton are 2 and 3). The University of Texas system is $9.36 Billion and UT-Austin itself is $2.2B. TAMU is $3.3B. One third of the income from the Permanent Fund (the UT System endowment) goes to TAMU and the other 2/3 is split amoung the 15 UT schools with the largest share going to UT-Austin. (2004 figures) I wasn't referencing university endowments. Just athletic ones.
|
|