omniorange
All Conference
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 2,757
- Like
- 2,963
I decided to focus on our move to the ACC next year and wondered what our most recent expenses/revenues were in comparison with current ACC members (and Pitt) to see how much more $$$ we might be investing in athletics (particularly football).
After reviewing the numbers for 2011-12 over on the Equity in Athletics site, I am left scratching my head. Now, I know the numbers are usually fudged somewhat, but then most institutions fudge a little, especially the "break-even" numbers. Usually when a profit is shown, it is probably close to being legit.
Anyway, as a result of my research this is what the numbers (such as they are) say:
Last year, we supposedly spent more on football than most of the ACC members, except for Miami and FSU.
Football Expenses:
Miami - 24.4 million
FSU - 22 million
SU - 21.7 million
VT - 20 million
Pitt - 19.8 million (odd that the two newbies are spending more on football already, isn't it?)
In terms of overall football revenue, we ranked 4th, behind VT, FSU, and Clemson.
Football Revenue:
VT - 35 million
FSU - 34.4 million
Clemson - 31.7 million
SU - 28.6 million
UNC - 26.3 million
Miami - 26.2 million
In terms of net football revenue (which may be more telling), we ranked 7th and then there is a big drop-off to 8th placed Pitt:
Net Football Revenue:
VT - 15 million
Clemson - 13.7 million
FSU - 12.4 million
UNC - 11.3 million
NC State - 10.5 million
GT - 7 million
SU - 6.95 million
Pitt - 2.2 million
In terms of overall athletic expenses, we ranked 4th in spending:
Overall Expenses:
FSU - 81.4 million
UVa - 72.4 million
UNC - 70.7 million
SU - 69.1 million
Duke - 67.4 million
In terms of overall revenues, we ranked 3rd:
Overall Revenues:
FSU - 81.4 million (which matched their expenses, usually means a slight fudge)
UVa - 78.4 million
SU - 73.2 million
UNC - 71.3 million
Duke - 67.9 million
And lastly in terms of net revenues we ranked 3rd again:
Overall Net Revenues:
UVa - 6 million
VT - 4.3 million
SU - 4.1 million
Miami - 2.7 million
UNC - 660K
Again, both expenses and revenues seem much higher than I ever recall seeing them in the past. Is there something I missed that made last year's figures so much better than previous years?
Cheers,
Neil
After reviewing the numbers for 2011-12 over on the Equity in Athletics site, I am left scratching my head. Now, I know the numbers are usually fudged somewhat, but then most institutions fudge a little, especially the "break-even" numbers. Usually when a profit is shown, it is probably close to being legit.
Anyway, as a result of my research this is what the numbers (such as they are) say:
Last year, we supposedly spent more on football than most of the ACC members, except for Miami and FSU.
Football Expenses:
Miami - 24.4 million
FSU - 22 million
SU - 21.7 million
VT - 20 million
Pitt - 19.8 million (odd that the two newbies are spending more on football already, isn't it?)
In terms of overall football revenue, we ranked 4th, behind VT, FSU, and Clemson.
Football Revenue:
VT - 35 million
FSU - 34.4 million
Clemson - 31.7 million
SU - 28.6 million
UNC - 26.3 million
Miami - 26.2 million
In terms of net football revenue (which may be more telling), we ranked 7th and then there is a big drop-off to 8th placed Pitt:
Net Football Revenue:
VT - 15 million
Clemson - 13.7 million
FSU - 12.4 million
UNC - 11.3 million
NC State - 10.5 million
GT - 7 million
SU - 6.95 million
Pitt - 2.2 million
In terms of overall athletic expenses, we ranked 4th in spending:
Overall Expenses:
FSU - 81.4 million
UVa - 72.4 million
UNC - 70.7 million
SU - 69.1 million
Duke - 67.4 million
In terms of overall revenues, we ranked 3rd:
Overall Revenues:
FSU - 81.4 million (which matched their expenses, usually means a slight fudge)
UVa - 78.4 million
SU - 73.2 million
UNC - 71.3 million
Duke - 67.9 million
And lastly in terms of net revenues we ranked 3rd again:
Overall Net Revenues:
UVa - 6 million
VT - 4.3 million
SU - 4.1 million
Miami - 2.7 million
UNC - 660K
Again, both expenses and revenues seem much higher than I ever recall seeing them in the past. Is there something I missed that made last year's figures so much better than previous years?
Cheers,
Neil