Texas Longhorns Still #1 in the Game of Moneyball
In 2001, the University of Texas reported revenue from athletics of almost $54 million. Football brought in $26 million of that amount.
Just ten years later those numbers resemble monopoly money as football jumped all the way to $95 million in revenue, with UT reporting bringing in over $150 million in the 2010-11 school year once again making the Longhorns the highest-grossing athletics department in the NCAA.
Ohio State was next, trailing Texas in revenue by almost $18 million. Of course expenses have also risen. Texas spent over $133 million on its 19 collegiate sports in 2010-11 -- which is $18 million more than its first three football opponents for 2012 -- Wyoming, New Mexico and Mississippi spent -- combined.
According to USA Today, the top 50 revenue producers, led by Texas, generated an average of nearly $81.5 million while the bottom 49 averaged a little more than $28 million.
As the gap between the elite of the BCS and the rest of D-1 (FBS) football increases, the drumbeat for a restructuring of D-1 football increases but even Texas is not immune to the financial pressures being placed upon Universities outside of athletics.
University of Texas President William Powers, who disagreed with Gov. Rick Perry's call for a two year tuition freeze for UT, has been the subject of rumors that his job is in jeopardy.
Powers has been an advocate for athletics and its role in the overall health of the University. Powers sees athletics as serving as "the front porch" of the University and that success on the field can lead to increased interest from potential students as well as an increase in donors. Texas has also pledged to return $6 million of its annual revenue take from the Longhorn Network to academics.
Powers believes that the explosive increase in TV revenues for the major conferences over the recent years could eventually lead to a narrowing of the list of schools who will play at the highest level.
"We may get to a point - I want to underline the word 'may' - where many schools are really not in a position to compete at the level of the Floridas and the Notre Dames and the Texases and the USCs," Powers said. "Like any competitive business, being in it and not really being in the game, you can get hurt."
As for the financial disparities, Texas makes no apologies for its ability to generate revenue.
"Whatever we do, we want to do it well," UT Athletics Director Deloss Dodds says. "Whatever sport we have, we want it totally funded - I mean totally funded. We want it to be the right experience for every youngster on all of our teams. Whether it be travel or housing or whatever it is, we want it to be first class."
Later today we will take a deeper look in the revenue figures for the BCS programs and how these numbers are affecting realignment.
11 comments
|
Add comment
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I was going to say
make that ‘m’ a lower case.
by Scipio Tex on May 15, 2025 11:33 AM CDT reply actions
Subsidies
Why do Alabama and Florida have millions of dollars in subsidies when they are so profitable?
by UTeze on May 15, 2025 1:06 PM CDT reply actions
Without really knowing about these particular subsidies...
most subsidies are political and have little to do with market conditions.
by Yossarian Rising on May 15, 2025 1:17 PM CDT up reply actions
Accounting
It’s not as if these schools are counting everything similarly. They are following the same basic rules, but the rules leave a lot of room for leeway. For example, if a university charges an athletic fee as part of tuition and fees, then I don’t think it’s fair to call that athletic department revenue. It’s a university subsidy in my eyes, but I’m not a CPA.
Golden Age for CFB. No other way to put it. Hope Texas can translate Number 1 at the box office to a few more Number 1s in the final rankings.
by G.O.F on May 15, 2025 7:34 PM CDT up reply actions
You're right
Mostly. There’s a breakdown button that shows about 60% of Florida’s subsidy comes from student fees, the rest from “school funds”.
by UTeze on May 15, 2025 11:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Interesting to see who does ostensibly operate free and clear.
Only eight.
by Sailor Ripley on May 15, 2025 4:34 PM CDT reply actions
Another just comically absurd thing is that the University of Florida recently cut their entire computer science department to save approximately $1.8 million dollars and yet they paid their athletic department over $4 million dollars over the last five years. An athletic department that won two national championships in football, one BCS bowl, a basketball national championship, and have several baseball world series appearances. Given all that success, how is their athletic department financially insolvent?!
by pleaseplaykindle on May 16, 2025 11:00 AM CDT up reply actions
U of H has 20 million dollars in subsidies
Damn.
Similarly, it’s interesting how expenses manage to find their revenue water mark.
by Scipio Tex on May 15, 2025 7:34 PM CDT reply actions
But if the student fees are voluntary
It’s not a subsidy at all. When I was at UT you had the choice to buy the ticket package or not. When I attended U of Wyoming you just got free admission to whatever sporting event you cared to attend with your student ID. I assume that there was a non-voluntary fee for athletics, although I don’t remember seeing it.
So in the former case you are specifically paying for tickets and that money should be revenue to the Athletics department. In the latter case its certainly less clear, but many students did attend games theoretically using tickets the AD could otherwise sell. So certainly they should receive some portion of the athletics fee. Now how that amount is calculated would determine whether the school is subsidizing the AD or the other way around.
by texitect on May 16, 2025 11:27 AM CDT reply actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.

- » Create a new SB Nation account
- » Already registered with SB Nation? Log in!

by srr50 on 





















