ADVERTISEMENT

USA Today posts NCAA School Revenues for 2015-16

Jeepers Creepers

Jeepers Creepers

Gold Buffalo
May 29, 2001
3,267
154
63
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Note: Private schools are exempt from disclosing these data.

CUSA school revenues:
64. ODU $44.7M
73. Charlotte $37.3M
80. N. Texas $33.3M
81. UTEP $32.7M
83. UAB $32.5M
84. MTSU $32.4
86. FAU $32.1M
96. Marshall $30.1M
97. W. Kentucky $29.5M
98. FIU $29.4M
106. UTSA $27.4M
118. So. Miss. $25.9M
124. La. Tech $23.4

Big 12 school revenues:
2. Texas $188.0M
6. Oklahoma $150.4M
26. West Virginia $105.1M
37. Ok. State $93.7M
38. Kansas $90.7M
42. Texas Tech $83.0M
48. Iowa State $78.4M
49. Kansas State $77.9M

Top 5 "G5" schools:
46. UConn $79.2M
53. UCF $59.4M
54. Cincinnati $59.1M
56. San Diego St. $56.6M
57. Houston $51.5M

Bottom 5 "P5" schools:
49. Kansas State $77.9M
50. Colorado $77.3M
51. Georgia Tech $76.4M
52. Oregon State $72.7M
55. Wash. State $58.8M

The "Allocated" column always makes for interesting discussion. (This is basically any revenue not generated by the athletic department - student fees, state money, etc.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: AllEers6
A couple observations.
#1 we have almost doubled revenue in past 10 years.
#2 We do not rely heavily on student fees as do most G-5 schools with similar budgets.If we did we would add about 10 million to the budget
#3 How in the world does wvu raise that kind of money.
 
The majority of our conference is pretty similar in financial numbers. Th big 10 and ACC are both going to get bumps in revenue in the near future. But, I would expect to see the G5 conferences deal with a cut similar to that of CUSA.
 
ohio herd said:
#3 How in the world does wvu raise that kind of money.
Click to expand...
This may explain part of it:
I have 3 season tickets on the 40-yard line and a parking pass in a lot about 1/2 mile from the stadium. Including my minimum required donation, my cost this year was $3,075. I get a slight discount because I have had the same seats since 1984.
 
Jeepers Creepers said:
This may explain part of it:
I have 3 season tickets on the 40-yard line and a parking pass in a lot about 1/2 mile from the stadium. Including my minimum required donation, my cost this year was $3,075. I get a slight discount because I have had the same seats since 1984.
Click to expand...
wow that says alot!
 
Jeepers Creepers said:
This may explain part of it:
I have 3 season tickets on the 40-yard line and a parking pass in a lot about 1/2 mile from the stadium. Including my minimum required donation, my cost this year was $3,075. I get a slight discount because I have had the same seats since 1984.
Click to expand...

Like I said Blind Cult of rednecks
 
  • Like
Reactions: cottrell75, The Real SamC, Jeepers Creepers and 1 other person
So if your numbers are correct and I don't think they are, you're saying to the state of WV our team because it's in the Big 12 spends 100 million a year on roughly 1000 student athletes, but we aren't ever playing Marshall home and home to benefit the entire state, just us, it's all about how much we can rake the state of WV for, like a free IPF and Football stadium and airport etc. But we aren't giving a dime back.

Pathetic!!!! The state residents should be rioting your Ohio based President's office!

Do something for the greater good you idiot worthless eerbillys!

Oh and thank you for allowing me to complete my daily mission.
 
Well that's revenues not expenses.

How much did they truly spend in that time period?
 
TheGreenhouseEffect said:
So if your numbers are correct and I don't think they are, you're saying to the state of WV our team because it's in the Big 12 spends 100 million a year on roughly 1000 student athletes, but we aren't ever playing Marshall home and home to benefit the entire state, just us, it's all about how much we can rake the state of WV for, like a free IPF and Football stadium and airport etc. But we aren't giving a dime back.

Pathetic!!!! The state residents should be rioting your Ohio based President's office!

Do something for the greater good you idiot worthless eerbillys!

Oh and thank you for allowing me to complete my daily mission.
Click to expand...

Revenue does not mean expenses. Just thought I'd point that out.
 
A Cousin From Richmond said:
Greenhouse, that means WVU made $105m but only spent $85m. If you subtract 85 from 105 that leaves 20. Thus, WVU made $20m according to the link. That's a terrific job by Gordon Gee.
Click to expand...
*THE OLD ME TROLL BURSTS FROM MY CHEST*

Well then you need to tell Doctor Gee that all he has to do is invest this profit back into the school and that'll make up for the budget cuts, and negate the need for a 5% tuition increase (which will already increase WVU's revenue by double the state's discretionary cut).

*SHRIVELS UP, CRAWLS BACK INSIDE*
 
  • Like
Reactions: pdbailey and Chris McLaughlin
herdalicious said:
*THE OLD ME TROLL BURSTS FROM MY CHEST*

Well then you need to tell Doctor Gee that all he has to do is invest this profit back into the school and that'll make up for the budget cuts, and negate the need for a 5% tuition increase (which will already increase WVU's revenue by double the state's discretionary cut).

*SHRIVELS UP, CRAWLS BACK INSIDE*
Click to expand...

Then how will we pay for a second video board at the stadium and bronze statues of former basketball players at the Coliseum?
 
  • Like
Reactions: herdalicious, Jeepers Creepers, Ninegate and 1 other person
These figures, if accurate, should dispel the somewhat asinine argument that some want to make on this site that WVU is at more of a disadvantage in trying to compete in the Big 12 than MU is in CUSA. Figures indicate that except for UT and OU, WVU financially is more than able to compete with the rest of its league. Figures in CUSA don't indicate the same scenario exists for Marshall!
 
  • Like
Reactions: pdbailey and dangerousdaneerfan
It's interesting that most of CUSA's premier programs are at the bottom of the revenue rankings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ninegate
It's called hire good coaches and being located in fertile recruiting grounds for all sports
 
Last edited:
oldeherd said:
These figures, if accurate, should dispel the somewhat asinine argument that some want to make on this site that WVU is at more of a disadvantage in trying to compete in the Big 12 than MU is in CUSA. Figures indicate that except for UT and OU, WVU financially is more than able to compete with the rest of its league. Figures in CUSA don't indicate the same scenario exists for Marshall!
Click to expand...

First, nobody has made that claim. The fact that you can't understand that point after numerous explanations is a bad enough indication of your intelligence.

But let's assume somebody did make the claim you are attributing to him. The numbers posted in this thread are revenue. Spending on facilities would be expenses. Need me to dumb this thread down and explain the differences for you?

Not only does that blow your attempt out of the water, but it also fails to take into consideration that schools don't spend the same amounts each year, yet the things they spend on carry over their benefits to other years.
 
The methodology states that all outside sources are included in revenue, but I wonder if all private contributions are accounted for in the numbers.
 
C.K. Ocsevol-Evad said:
First, nobody has made that claim. The fact that you can't understand that point after numerous explanations is a bad enough indication of your intelligence.

But let's assume somebody did make the claim you are attributing to him. The numbers posted in this thread are revenue. Spending on facilities would be expenses. Need me to dumb this thread down and explain the differences for you?

Not only does that blow your attempt out of the water, but it also fails to take into consideration that schools don't spend the same amounts each year, yet the things they spend on carry over their benefits to other years.
Click to expand...

Brainless. Apparently you think "revenue" and "expenses" exist in totally separate universes. What do these schools do with their revenues from sports? First of all, they cover their expenses, D.A.!! Be it salaries for staff, scholarship costs, or debt service on construction bonds used for facilities: all are EXPENSES. Why you want to inanely argue seemingly obvious and often mundane points is anyone's guess. Mine would be "stupidity".
 
oldeherd said:
Brainless. Apparently you think "revenue" and "expenses" exist in totally separate universes. What do these schools do with their revenues from sports? First of all, they cover their expenses, D.A.!! Be it salaries for staff, scholarship costs, or debt service on construction bonds used for facilities: all are EXPENSES. Why you want to inanely argue seemingly obvious and often mundane points is anyone's guess. Mine would be "stupidity".
Click to expand...

This is a really bad attempt at logic.

Your initial claim was that wvu does not have any more of a disadvantage in the Big 12 than Marshall does in C-USA. You foolishly made this claim based on looking at each athletic department's total revenue rankings. But revenue ranking is not the same as expenses. If an athletic department brings in a ton of money but spends very little (gives a higher percentage to the school's general fund, doesn't improve facilities, etc.), it is completely irrelevant how much each school brings in with revenues.

For instance, Texas A&M earned $194 million. Yet, they only spent $137 million. On the other hand, Texas earned millions less than A&M, yet they spent $34 million more.

If those figures held true year-after-year, Texas would have a huge advantage in athletics (assuming all other factors were equal) as they would be spending $34 million more per year. Hence, making your claim based on revenue instead of the far, far better category of expenses is comically illogical.

Let me dumb it down for you:

Assume I have an income of $100,000. Assume you have an income of $25,000. Assume I spend $500 on my house mortgage. Assume you spend $1000 on your house mortgage. Assuming all other factors (location, down payment, rate, time purchased, workmanship, upkeep, etc.) are the same, who is likely to have the better house?

Just because I earn more (revenue) doesn't mean I will have a better house, because I clearly spend (expenses) less on my house than you do on yours. Likewise, just because one institution earns more in athletic revenue than another doesn't mean that institution will have an advantage, because not all institutions spend (expenses) the same percentage of their revenue on athletics.

Christ, this is some basic sh!t you are looking like a fool trying to argue.
 
TheGreenhouseEffect said:
So if your numbers are correct and I don't think they are, you're saying to the state of WV our team because it's in the Big 12 spends 100 million a year on roughly 1000 student athletes, but we aren't ever playing Marshall home and home to benefit the entire state, just us, it's all about how much we can rake the state of WV for, like a free IPF and Football stadium and airport etc. But we aren't giving a dime back.

Pathetic!!!! The state residents should be rioting your Ohio based President's office!

Do something for the greater good you idiot worthless eerbillys!

Oh and thank you for allowing me to complete my daily mission.
Click to expand...

There is so much wrong with your line of thinking.

First, how would WVU playing Marshall benefit the entire state ? Tell me about the free IPF that you keep mentioning. And the Morgantown Airport hasn't been extended in 78 years............

This may not be the proper forum for us to fight about these statements of yours since it's your board and I'm just a visitor, but you are welcome to visit the Woodshed on the WVU board to expound on just how WVU is cheating the State of WV and Marshall in particular...........if you have the nerve, which I doubt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JCT1
Jeepers Creepers said:
This may explain part of it:
I have 3 season tickets on the 40-yard line and a parking pass in a lot about 1/2 mile from the stadium. Including my minimum required donation, my cost this year was $3,075. I get a slight discount because I have had the same seats since 1984.[/
Click to expand...
old buzzard said:
There is so much wrong with your line of thinking.

First, how would WVU playing Marshall benefit the entire state ? Tell me about the free IPF that you keep mentioning. And the Morgantown Airport hasn't been extended in 78 years............

This may not be the proper forum for us to fight about these statements of yours since it's your board and I'm just a visitor, but you are welcome to visit the Woodshed on the WVU board to expound on just how WVU is cheating the State of WV and Marshall in particular...........if you have the nerve, which I doubt.
Click to expand...
LOL He's not going to the Woodshed.....that tank of sharks will spit his bones out in a few post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JCT1
old buzzard said:
This may not be the proper forum for us to fight about these statements of yours since it's your board and I'm just a visitor, but you are welcome to visit the Woodshed on the WVU board to expound on just how WVU is cheating the State of WV and Marshall in particular...........if you have the nerve, which I doubt.
Click to expand...

Please, no. We have enough fools who post on here as it is. We don't need them to represent Marshall on other boards.
 
Y.A.G Si Ye Nots said:
This is a really bad attempt at logic.

Your initial claim was that wvu does not have any more of a disadvantage in the Big 12 than Marshall does in C-USA. You foolishly made this claim based on looking at each athletic department's total revenue rankings. But revenue ranking is not the same as expenses. If an athletic department brings in a ton of money but spends very little (gives a higher percentage to the school's general fund, doesn't improve facilities, etc.), it is completely irrelevant how much each school brings in with revenues.

For instance, Texas A&M earned $194 million. Yet, they only spent $137 million. On the other hand, Texas earned millions less than A&M, yet they spent $34 million more.

If those figures held true year-after-year, Texas would have a huge advantage in athletics (assuming all other factors were equal) as they would be spending $34 million more per year. Hence, making your claim based on revenue instead of the far, far better category of expenses is comically illogical.

Let me dumb it down for you:

Assume I have an income of $100,000. Assume you have an income of $25,000. Assume I spend $500 on my house mortgage. Assume you spend $1000 on your house mortgage. Assuming all other factors (location, down payment, rate, time purchased, workmanship, upkeep, etc.) are the same, who is likely to have the better house?

Just because I earn more (revenue) doesn't mean I will have a better house, because I clearly spend (expenses) less on my house than you do on yours. Likewise, just because one institution earns more in athletic revenue than another doesn't mean that institution will have an advantage, because not all institutions spend (expenses) the same percentage of their revenue on athletics.

Christ, this is some basic sh!t you are looking like a fool trying to argue.
Click to expand...

Numbnuts, your assumption is so damn asinine that only a DUMB POS would pose them. Apparently, you and COK evad are the only ones here DUMB ENOUGH to assume that one with an income of $25,000 will likely have anywhere near the quality and caliber of house that someone with an income of $100,000 has, all other factors being equal.

So the person with the lower income (revenue) spends twice as much on mortgage (expenditures) as the person with the higher income. So just how, with all other factors you mentioned being equal, does the fact that the lower income person's higher mortgage will over time ensure that he is likely to end up with the "better house"? Larger mortgage, an expenditure, other factors being equal, likely ensures a better house than a lower mortgage?? REMARKABLE. You do know that the mortgage goes to cover the lender's loan monies, fees, etc., don't you, and does nothing to raise or increase the intrinsic value of the house itself?

Try this. Marshall has athletic revenue of say $30 million. VA Tech has $100 million, lets say. MU budgets a million a year on football facilities, JCE stadium, etc., (expenditures), VA Tech spends a half million a year on its football facilities, Lane Stadium, etc. (expenditures). So just when will MU end up with the better football facilities? Maybe around the year 2525 or so!!

Your argument may be valid if everyone starts out the same, with the EXACT same facilities. But in the real world of college athletics that is an absurdity. No two schools' facilities are exactly alike. WVU with a relatively "new" Mountaineer Field, say, may have a much more modern and well designed, engineered and constructed stadium, than a Kansas whose stadium may be decades older. WVU may be able to renovate and upgrade its newer facility very well for around $60 million, while Kansas may spend $100 to $150 million to do the same with its much older stadium. That extra $$$ or expenditure does not guarantee that the Jay Hawks will end up with a much better football facility than WVU, if at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pdbailey and dangerousdaneerfan
oldeherd said:
Numbnuts, your assumption is so damn asinine that only a DUMB POS would pose them. Apparently, you and COK evad are the only ones here DUMB ENOUGH to assume that one with an income of $25,000 will likely have anywhere near the quality and caliber of house that someone with an income of $100,000 has, all other factors being equal.

So the person with the lower income (revenue) spends twice as much on mortgage (expenditures) as the person with the higher income. So just how, with all other factors you mentioned being equal, does the fact that the lower income person's higher mortgage will over time ensure that he is likely to end up with the "better house"? Larger mortgage, an expenditure, other factors being equal, likely ensures a better house than a lower mortgage?? REMARKABLE. You do know that the mortgage goes to cover the lender's loan monies, fees, etc., don't you, and does nothing to raise or increase the intrinsic value of the house itself?
Click to expand...

If all factors are exactly the same (location, rate, down payment, etc.), a person whose mortgage is twice as high is because their property is worth a lot more. In other words, they have a much better property.

What you tried incorrectly arguing was that because wvu has higher revenue than some other Big 12 schools, it means their football facilities are nicer. Revenue has nothing to do with it - if you make more money than somebody (like the $100,000 earner) but spend less on things (assuming all other factors are the same), you won't have the nicer house/facilities.

It was a very simply analogy that you tried muddying with other factors. Further, your claim that wvu's football facilities have to be better because they earned more in one year than some other Big 12 teams is ripe with illogic. I already explained why revenue doesn't always equate to facilities (see Texas' earnings and spending vs. A&M's), but looking at just one year makes your argument even dumber.


oldeherd said:
Your argument may be valid if everyone starts out the same, with the EXACT same facilities. But in the real world of college athletics that is an absurdity. No two schools' facilities are exactly alike. WVU with a relatively "new" Mountaineer Field, say, may have a much more modern and well designed, engineered and constructed stadium, than a Kansas whose stadium may be decades older. WVU may be able to renovate and upgrade its newer facility very well for around $60 million, while Kansas may spend $100 to $150 million to do the same with its much older stadium. That extra $$$ or expenditure does not guarantee that the Jay Hawks will end up with a much better football facility than WVU, if at all.
Click to expand...

I never argued that it would make Kansas' facilities better, moron. Why do you continue to argue against things I have never claimed? There is a possibility that after sinking $300 million into them, it will. But that wasn't my argument.

My argument was that wvu has the 7th or 8th best football facilities in the country. You have failed to show how that is not true.

Go back to telling us again how wvu doesn't have a disadvantage in facilities compared to the other Big 12 schools because wvu earned more in one year than some other Big 12 schools.
 
I agree with your most of your statements. WVU can never match the resources of Texas, Oklahoma, OSU and other schools in the Big 12. The state of Texas has more money than most countries. WVU is at a disadvantage in the hunt for a Big 12 football championship....a gap that's nearly impossible to close. But, an athletic department is defined by more than football. Over all the school has done very well. Being competitive in the major men's sports, and women's sports. There are two more major renovations for the football stadium, and one for the basketball arena. All of these will take 10 years to complete. Plus numerous upgrades to the minor sport facilities. It never ends. A national championship in football....no. Basketball maybe. Good minor sports yes. That's about all you can expect no matter how much money is spent.
 
Ninegate said:
I agree with your most of your statements. WVU can never match the resources of Texas, Oklahoma, OSU and other schools in the Big 12. The state of Texas has more money than most countries. WVU is at a disadvantage in the hunt for a Big 12 football championship....a gap that's nearly impossible to close. But, an athletic department is defined by more than football. Over all the school has done very well. Being competitive in the major men's sports, and women's sports. There are two more major renovations for the football stadium, and one for the basketball arena. All of these will take 10 years to complete. Plus numerous upgrades to the minor sport facilities. It never ends. A national championship in football....no. Basketball maybe. Good minor sports yes. That's about all you can expect no matter how much money is spent.
Click to expand...

Which is why Dana having basically the same record as Doc proves the drunk to be doing a better job. Compared to their respective conferences, Doc is far better off with what he has in C-USA than what Dana has in the Big 12, yet Dana is competing as well as Doc is in their conferences.
 
YAG said "my argument was that WVU has the 7th or 8th football facilities in the country." Yet you have also been asininely and consistently arguing that WVU is at a disadvantage football facility wise vis-a-vis most of the Big 12 schools. Logic, therefore, would indicate that those B12 schools ahead of WVU in football facilities would be in the Top 6 or 7 in the country. How DAMN DUMB. By your thinking, these BIG 12 schools ahead of WVU are ahead, football facility wise, of almost all of the top football programs in the Big 10 (Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Penn State), the SEC (Florida, Alabama, Tenn., LSU, Tex A&M, Georgia), the PAC (Oregon, So. Cal, UCLA), Atl. Coast (FL State, Clemson), etc. Would have to be if WVU is number 7 or 8 in the country. Man, your "logic", "reasoning", or whatever you call it is beyond "MORONIC"!!!
 
oldeherd said:
YAG said "my argument was that WVU has the 7th or 8th football facilities in the country." Yet you have also been asininely and consistently arguing that WVU is at a disadvantage football facility wise vis-a-vis most of the Big 12 schools. Logic, therefore, would indicate that those B12 schools ahead of WVU in football facilities would be in the Top 6 or 7 in the country. How DAMN DUMB. By your thinking, these BIG 12 schools ahead of WVU are ahead, football facility wise, of almost all of the top football programs in the Big 10 (Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Penn State), the SEC (Florida, Alabama, Tenn., LSU, Tex A&M, Georgia), the PAC (Oregon, So. Cal, UCLA), Atl. Coast (FL State, Clemson), etc. Would have to be if WVU is number 7 or 8 in the country. Man, your "logic", "reasoning", or whatever you call it is beyond "MORONIC"!!!
Click to expand...

Clearly, anyone who has read any of these related threads would know that I meant "conference" instead of "country."

If you put a few more exclamation points on the end of your sentences, I heard it makes your comment even dumber . . . quite a hard task with your comments.

Tell us again how revenue and expenses are the same things.
 
This is where WVU doesn't get enough credit. The private donations (Mountaineer Athletic Club) are higher than most people realize. I think I read somewhere around $35 million last year? That is higher than VT's, for instance.
 
oldeherd said:
YAG said "my argument was that WVU has the 7th or 8th football facilities in the country." Yet you have also been asininely and consistently arguing that WVU is at a disadvantage football facility wise vis-a-vis most of the Big 12 schools. Logic, therefore, would indicate that those B12 schools ahead of WVU in football facilities would be in the Top 6 or 7 in the country. How DAMN DUMB. By your thinking, these BIG 12 schools ahead of WVU are ahead, football facility wise, of almost all of the top football programs in the Big 10 (Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Penn State), the SEC (Florida, Alabama, Tenn., LSU, Tex A&M, Georgia), the PAC (Oregon, So. Cal, UCLA), Atl. Coast (FL State, Clemson), etc. Would have to be if WVU is number 7 or 8 in the country. Man, your "logic", "reasoning", or whatever you call it is beyond "MORONIC"!!!
Click to expand...


Duke's facilities are better then WV. So is their stadium.
 
Gold-n-Blue said:
This is where WVU doesn't get enough credit. The private donations (Mountaineer Athletic Club) are higher than most people realize. I think I read somewhere around $35 million last year? That is higher than VT's, for instance.
Click to expand...

$33.5m, which was a massive jump from the previous years.

any idea why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Chris McLaughlin

WAR ROOM 6/24/21 (Presented By Michael Gwinn Insurance Agency)

Replies
34
Views
2K
Old Fairfield - Premium Forum
Josh Stowers
Josh Stowers
Herdmeister

Herd SOS not too tough per ESPN

Replies
15
Views
2K
Herd Nation
Raoul Duke MU
Raoul Duke MU
Chris McLaughlin

ESPN Says Marshall has the 60th hardest schedule in the country next year

Replies
20
Views
549
Old Fairfield - Premium Forum
MR_PiCk6
MR_PiCk6
Jeepers Creepers

CUSA 2016-17 revenues (per USA Today)

Replies
17
Views
2K
Herd Nation
bklyneer
B
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back