Top 10 in Revenue

[ThatDude]

Baseball may be the 3rd most popular sport in the U.S.

No baseball at Wisconsin.

[77ncaachamps]

They must be counting donations as "other" revenue. Other schools will have a required donation amount in order to purchase season tickets, and they might account for all of it as ticket revenue. I highly doubt any of their sports outside of football and basketball are generating any kind of significant revenue.

So sales revenue must be included. Wisconsin branded sweatshirts at Kohls, Target, etc. must contribute to the revenue.

If this is the case, this is due to two things: strong state identity by Wisconsinites and the lack of a major 2nd state school.

Wisconsin is the flag school but the others are almost rans to an outsider: UW Milwaukee, UW Green Bay, etc.

Texas has TAMU, Texas Tech.
California has the UC system (UCLA, Cal) and some of the major CSU schools (San Diego State, Fresno State, San Jose State).

The white W on a red flag is easily identifiable by every resident of WI and they pretty much see it as representative of themselves and their state. So, buying WI themed items with no other state competitor is probably why their "other revenues" are so high.

[ThatDude]

So sales revenue must be included. Wisconsin branded sweatshirts at Kohls, Target, etc. must contribute to the revenue.

If this is the case, this is due to two things: strong state identity by Wisconsinites and the lack of a major 2nd state school.

Wisconsin is the flag school but the others are almost rans to an outsider: UW Milwaukee, UW Green Bay, etc.

Texas has TAMU, Texas Tech.
California has the UC system (UCLA, Cal) and some of the major CSU schools (San Diego State, Fresno State, San Jose State).

The white W on a red flag is easily identifiable by every resident of WI and they pretty much see it as representative of themselves and their state. So, buying WI themed items with no other state competitor is probably why their "other revenues" are so high.

Best response to this post. Thanks for posting.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Texas has TAMU, Texas Tech.

They also have Baylor, TCU, and to a lesser degree Houston, Rice, SMU, and all the UT and TAMU system schools

[Tugg Speedman]

So sales revenue must be included. Wisconsin branded sweatshirts at Kohls, Target, etc. must contribute to the revenue.

If this is the case, this is due to two things: strong state identity by Wisconsinites and the lack of a major 2nd state school.

Wisconsin is the flag school but the others are almost rans to an outsider: UW Milwaukee, UW Green Bay, etc.

Texas has TAMU, Texas Tech.
California has the UC system (UCLA, Cal) and some of the major CSU schools (San Diego State, Fresno State, San Jose State).

The white W on a red flag is easily identifiable by every resident of WI and they pretty much see it as representative of themselves and their state. So, buying WI themed items with no other state competitor is probably why their "other revenues" are so high.

Honestly, this sounds like made up rationalization.  Only a Bucky Homer thinks WI is even I the same zip code as Michigan, Ohio State, Texas or Alabama.  It probably not even in the same zip code as some schools not I the top 10 like Notre Dame and UCLA.

[THEultimateWARRIOR]

You guys must not know hockey...This is a pretty big revenue stream for the UW athletic department!

Mens hockey ranks top 3 nationally in attendance year after year. They average a little over 10,000 fans a game and average 70% capacity of the Kohl Center.

The women's Badger hockey team on the other hand broke the NCAA attendance record each year from 2011 to 2013. On average they fill the LaBahn arena at 75% capacity. A few years ago I was at the women's Badgers vs Gophers game at the Kohl and there was about 10,000 fans in attendance.

2011 ticket revenue by sport

Football = $18.285 million
Mens Basketball = $5.369 million
Mens Hockey = $3.398 million

Many of the other schools on the list do not have 3 sports that can generate as much revenue as the Badgers football, basketball, and hockey teams.

Here is a pretty good breakdown of UW's revenue streams...

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2012/05/03/wisconsins-athletic-department-budget-revenues/

[forgetful]

UW reported $59 million in donations and contributions last year, the most in FBS.  That is over a third of their entire revenue.

Interestingly, like most programs, they reported expenses of $0 for administrative and support staff salaries and benefits.  Just one of the ways they doctor the books.

The UW system also typically subsidizes athletics still to the tune of around $5-10M per year.

[77ncaachamps]

They also have Baylor, TCU, and to a lesser degree Houston, Rice, SMU, and all the UT and TAMU system schools

But Baylor, TCU, Rice, and SMU were left out because they're private institutions. Same reason I left out MU for WI and Stanford and USC for CA.

I know UTEP, North Texas, and UTSA are other state schools. Houston is a big public one too.

Honestly, this sounds like made up rationalization.  Only a Bucky Homer thinks WI is even I the same zip code as Michigan, Ohio State, Texas or Alabama.  It probably not even in the same zip code as some schools not I the top 10 like Notre Dame and UCLA.

Not really. Look at all of the top 10 schools mentioned: they're the flagship public school of their state. Alumni pride and state identification are big vehicles for their marketing and revenue streams.

[Jay Bee]

Nonsense to "rank" based on these numbers.

The numbers are not good comparables.

[GGGG]

UW reported $59 million in donations and contributions last year, the most in FBS.  That is over a third of their entire revenue.

Interestingly, like most programs, they reported expenses of $0 for administrative and support staff salaries and benefits.  Just one of the ways they doctor the books.

The UW system also typically subsidizes athletics still to the tune of around $5-10M per year.

I'm not sure we have to use negative phrases like "doctoring the books."  They are doing nothing illegal.  Nothing unethical.  Every school accounts for this stuff differently.  That is why the entire exercise is flawed.

[Tugg Speedman]

Not really. Look at all of the top 10 schools mentioned: they're the flagship public school of their state. Alumni pride and state identification are big vehicles for their marketing and revenue streams.

College Licensing Corporation (CLC) has Bucky as 13th in revenues last year:
http://www.clc.com/News/Rankings-Annual-2012-13.aspx

And 15th in the latest quarterly numbers:
http://www.clc.com/News/Archived-Rankings/Rankings-Q3-2013.aspx

They are NOT a top 10 school based on merchandising, let alone number 2.

Also as noted above, Hockey brought in $3 million of the $42ish million of "other" revenue.  Bucky could drop hockey tomorrow and it amount to little more than a rounding error (less than 10%) to other revenue.

[MarquetteDano]

I agree that the various universities account for things differently and the difference between #2 and #10 is somewhat flawed.

That said, with all due respect to the Wisconsinites on the board , it is very Wisconsin to try to discredit that Wisconsin is not one of the big universities with all of the advantages that go with it.  Wisconsin tries to play the little guy in every way and it is a lie.

Wisconsin is not the little guy.  Get over it.  They may not be the Yankees of college sports but they are the Red Sox.

[keefe]

Take all of these with a grain of salt.  The expense side of the equation is different from school to school.  Coaching salaries portion paid by the school, vs the department for example.  Who is paying for the maintenance, electricity, water, etc for Camp Randall or the Kohl...is it the athletic department or is that line item hitting general plant costs.  So on and so forth. 

As such, determining profitability in these exercises is very difficult because each school accounts for revenues and expenses differently, making the P & L very difficult to compare from one entity to another.  One school's athletic department can look like it is profitable, when in fact many of the expenses are covered by another part of the U. and a comparison to another school includes those expenses in the AD budget.

Jams

You may or may not know the answer but many here have referenced Bo Ryan getting a tax payer funded state pension. The state liability should only be on that portion of his salary actually paid by the university. How much of his salary is funded by the state v boosters?

[Jay Bee]

Jams

You may or may not know the answer but many here have referenced Bo Ryan getting a tax payer funded state pension. The state liability should only be on that portion of his salary actually paid by the university. How much of his salary is funded by the state v boosters?

No Ryan's contract, relative to sources of funding, is quite unique.

More importantly, I think I have a crush on his daughter.

[ChicosBailBonds]

True, it is very easy to allocate costs around, especially those that can be more general and administrative in nature (maintenance, utilities, depreciation, etc.).  However, this article doesn't touch on expenses at all.  This is all revenue, which is a lot more difficult to just move around.

Very true and a fair point.  Though the article did say "what colleges spent and made" in 2012-13. 

[Boozemon Barro]

Also you have to consider that athletic departments are not for profit entities, so most will actively try to spend every dime they make. This is important to know whenever you find yourself in a pay for play discussion. When someone brings up that most athletic departments operate in the red, you can immediately dismiss all of their opinions because they have no idea what they are talking about.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Also you have to consider that athletic departments are not for profit entities, so most will actively try to spend every dime they make. This is important to know whenever you find yourself in a pay for play discussion. When someone brings up that most athletic departments operate in the red, you can immediately dismiss all of their opinions because they have no idea what they are talking about.

LOL.  "You can immediately dismiss all of their opinions because they have no idea what they are talking about."  Uhm, ok. 

It can't be because their revenues simply do not match their expenses?  Made worse by having to pay coaches that are fired and still being paid, or underperforming teams that do not drive attendance that they thought they would (thus lower revenues).  Please, plenty of people know what they are talking about.  Most are not self sufficient, and need student fees, support from the university, etc to operate in the black or break even, and even then many are not.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/

http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/08/13/marylands-athletic-department-was-21-million-in-the-red-last-year/

[forgetful]

I'm not sure we have to use negative phrases like "doctoring the books."  They are doing nothing illegal.  Nothing unethical.  Every school accounts for this stuff differently.  That is why the entire exercise is flawed.

Sorry, didn't mean to use the phrase to indicate anything illegal, shouldn't have used that phrase.  Maybe clever accounting would have been a better choice of words.

[77ncaachamps]

College Licensing Corporation (CLC) has Bucky as 13th in revenues last year:
http://www.clc.com/News/Rankings-Annual-2012-13.aspx

And 15th in the latest quarterly numbers:
http://www.clc.com/News/Archived-Rankings/Rankings-Q3-2013.aspx

They are NOT a top 10 school based on merchandising, let alone number 2.

Also as noted above, Hockey brought in $3 million of the $42ish million of "other" revenue.  Bucky could drop hockey tomorrow and it amount to little more than a rounding error (less than 10%) to other revenue.

Hmmm. 6 of the 10 teams mentioned in the annual numbers made the top 10 list as well. So,  I think you're right that licensing isn't the "bigger" number as it seems.

Interesting of note, as an aside, are the profiles, royalties and fees WI and MU are attributed:

MU:  http://www.clc.com/Clients/Client-Detail.aspx?id=65&t=1

UW: http://www.clc.com/Clients/Client-Detail.aspx?id=165&t=1

[forgetful]

https://b2.caspio.com/dp.asp?AppKey=900c1000ea466e223e104a22814aC

The official breakdowns are available there.  They don't go by sport, but as I mentioned above the vast majority of UW's revenues were donations and contributions.

[ThatDude]

https://b2.caspio.com/dp.asp?AppKey=900c1000ea466e223e104a22814aC

The official breakdowns are available there.  They don't go by sport, but as I mentioned above the vast majority of UW's revenues were donations and contributions.

Are donations bad? Is it a bad thing if someone donates millions into a swimming, wrestling or hockey program?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Honestly, this sounds like made up rationalization.  Only a Bucky Homer thinks WI is even I the same zip code as Michigan, Ohio State, Texas or Alabama.  It probably not even in the same zip code as some schools not I the top 10 like Notre Dame and UCLA.

But for the people of Wisconsin, that's exactly how they feel.  It's the only game in town for college football, one of only two high majors for basketball, it's part of the state capital, etc, etc.

On Saturdays from August until November, Wisconsin-madison owns the state.  Just the way it is.  Nothing is going to change that. 

[Tugg Speedman]

Are donations bad? Is it a bad thing if someone donates millions into a swimming, wrestling or hockey program?

No, it's not recurring.

Was the $58 million in donation to fund a project, like a new facility?  

Northwestern just broke ground on a $200 million athletic complex that will be done in 18 months.  So they will be #1 next year as they had a massive capital campaign to fund it.


Added Later

The link above has data back to 2008.

UW Donations & Contributions
2013 = $58.9 million
2012 = $19.7 million
2011 = $14.9 million
2010 = $19.2 million
2009 = $16.2 million
2008 = $18.8 million

I'm guessing they had a capital campaign in 2013 to raise money (can anyone confirm).  If so, in 2014 they will fall back to $15 to $20 million in donations and drop out of the overall top 10.