Has any one --

Rog

Active member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
1,017
Reaction score
1
Points
38
studied the loss of revenue from football attendance to the monies received from the B10 for football TV revenue. Just a guess but they may balance them selves out or even show an income increase. Of course the ideal is to have sold out revenue plus the TV income which some schools do.
 

Generally it's hard to compare across schools as they don't all account for things in easily comparable ways.
 

TV deals drive revenue in sports. If schools had to rely on ticket sales as a main revenue stream they’d be a few bad seasons away from cutting non-revenue programs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

In Minnesota's case it's almost certain they've seen a net revenue increase as a result of the new TV money. High level, the athletics program went from receiving somewhere in the neighborhood of $36m in revenue from TV in 2017 to $51m in 2018, or a +$15m increase. That's roughly equivalent to 13% of the total athletic department revenues in 2017 (of which less than 20% were from ticket sales).

For 2017 in total, Minnesota reported basically $10m in football ticket revenue and $3.6m in concessions/parking/program revenue across all sports. Even if ticket revenue was down 50% - which it isn't - the increase in TV contract would more than offset it.

Of course, that new TV money gets distributed across athletics and not just to football, so it's not a direct source of revenue for the program and therefore it's not a perfect comparison, but generally speaking the department is likely going to bring in more money this year than they did last year by a rate greater than inflation, despite any declines in ticket revenue.
 

But, the original point is still valid:

IF, at some point, the TV money stops increasing, or even declines, due to cord-cutting and a loss in traditional cable TV customers, then a lot of programs will be forced to make cutbacks - or try to jack up ticket prices to make up the difference. Couple that with stories about declining attendance at college FB games, and there is at least the possibility of some tougher times ahead for major college programs. Of course, it will be the non-revenue sports that will bear the brunt of any budget cuts.
 


In Minnesota's case it's almost certain they've seen a net revenue increase as a result of the new TV money. High level, the athletics program went from receiving somewhere in the neighborhood of $36m in revenue from TV in 2017 to $51m in 2018, or a +$15m increase. That's roughly equivalent to 13% of the total athletic department revenues in 2017 (of which less than 20% were from ticket sales).

For 2017 in total, Minnesota reported basically $10m in football ticket revenue and $3.6m in concessions/parking/program revenue across all sports. Even if ticket revenue was down 50% - which it isn't - the increase in TV contract would more than offset it.

Of course, that new TV money gets distributed across athletics and not just to football, so it's not a direct source of revenue for the program and therefore it's not a perfect comparison, but generally speaking the department is likely going to bring in more money this year than they did last year by a rate greater than inflation, despite any declines in ticket revenue.

Which is probably the whole reason ticket prices haven't changed, there's no need from a financial perspective. I think their thought process is 'Keep the ticket prices as is, and if PJ gets back to/past 8 wins, ticket sales will increase. And if something goes wrong, we maximized the money we could get'. I'd expect we don't see ticket price changes at least until PJ gets to 8-9 wins (assuming he does) for a year or 2. Then either sales go up and hopefully they either drop prices a bit to try to boost sales even more/they stay the same price until the stadium is mostly full/sells out or sales are stagnant and then they'll address the problem of ticket prices once they convince themselves that "maybe wins aren't the only thing causing this". I liked the season ticket price comparison in one of the other threads, I'd be interested in seeing what the average price on ticket master/stub hub per game per team is and then compare that with wins and or schedule. I think it would further confirm that prices are too high.
 

studied the loss of revenue from football attendance to the monies received from the B10 for football TV revenue. Just a guess but they may balance them selves out or even show an income increase. Of course the ideal is to have sold out revenue plus the TV income which some schools do.

Rog; Not exactly sure what you are asking but would guess that yes, every Big Ten school showed an increase in revenue. Captain 07 had a good point. Minnesota, and all other B1G schools should have seen profits go up as well.

Here is a survey from 2016 focusing on he '14-'15 school year. It shows the revenue for each school WITHOUT the BTN money.

Minnesota is the only school where the writer doesn't list Football profit, only expenses, and tOSU football isn't separated out.

"Who are richest and poorest Big Ten football programs?

So, what does each Big Ten school make on its own? Specifically, what sort of money does each reap on gross revenue from football, the cash cow of all college sports? It's all listed on mandatory U.S. Department of Education filings and it's a wide disparity from lowest to highest. You might be stunned at how unequal the haves and have-nots would be if not for the collective TV deal, set to mushroom even more with the next contract signing in 2017, half of which will reportedly be dealt to Fox.

Here are the figures for what each Big Ten school does on its own, its gross football revenue earnings during the last fiscal year available (July 2014-June 2015).


14. Purdue: $17.1 million - After expenses, Boilermaker football netted less than $1.5 million in profit during fiscal 2014-15, also a league low. The men’s basketball program actually turned a larger profit (almost $3 million).

13. Rutgers: $26.9 million - Rutgers football cleared only about $6.8 million in profit during fiscal 2014-15.

12. Indiana: $27.5 million - The football program did manage to cut a $9.5 million profit.

11. Illinois: $30.8 million - But for now, UI football is getting by on about $12.5M profit last fiscal year.

10. Maryland: $30.9 million - But it’s been a tough slog up to now – just a $14.8M football profit last year.

9. Northwestern: $31.7 million - Wildcat football actually turned a $10.8M profit last fiscal year with the second-lowest paid attendance average in the league (38,316 in 2014 season).

8. Minnesota: $35.8 million - Under deposed AD Norwood Teague, the football program listed expenditures of $26.3M, a surprisingly high number relative to revenues collected

7. Wisconsin: $44.8 million - Wisconsin football made $18 million in profit that year.

6. Iowa: $52.4 million - Kirk Ferentz’s football program made a $26.9M profit in fiscal 2014-15 which does not even account for its unbeaten regular season last year.

5. Michigan State: $59.2 million - MSU football made a $21.5M profit in fiscal 2014-15 which, paired with $7.1M made by Tom Izzo’s hoops juggernaut, put Michigan State athletics on firm footing even before the conference’s broadcast rights payout.

4. Nebraska: $60.6 million - Nebraska is one of only four B1G football programs that turned a >$30M profit in fiscal 2014-15 -- $31.4M to be exact.

3. Penn State: $71.3 million - Ohio State, which played two extra games because of the 2014 Big Ten championship and the College Football Playoff semifinal, was still second to PSU in football expenses at $32.6M.

2. Ohio State: $83.5 million - Its net profit was a massive $51 million. Adding in the ample $15.1M profit of Thad Matta’s basketball program, Ohio State athletics netted $54.6M across the board even after accounting for money-losing “non-revenue” sports.

1. Michigan: $88.3 million -Wolverine football netted a staggering $56.6 million in fiscal 2014-15.

https://www.pennlive.com/pennstatefootball/index.ssf/2016/06/who_are_the_richest_and_poores.html#0
 

Could that large expenditure number be mainly from the expense of installing the facilities to sell beer?
 

With the TV money coming in, the big ten schools could all play in empty stadiums and make money hand over fist

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 




Its interesting people talk about cord cutting as hurting viewership. A lot of people who "cut the cord" end up with Apple TV, Roku, etc. and pay for those services, who in turn pay cable companies to show their content.
 




Top Bottom