DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Stony Brook Fans
HTML https://sbufan.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Conference and Athletics
*****************************************************
#Post#: 18643--------------------------------------------------
NCAA Athletic Department Budgets for Public Universities (USA To
day)
By: NoVA_Seawolf Date: July 6, 2017, 5:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
USA Today compiled a list of the Athletic department revenues
and expenses as well as the % of the budget that's subsidized.
There's some VERY interesting data in here to say the least.
This is for the 2015-16 school year. Note that this is only for
public schools as they're required to release the data, but
privates aren't (so the Ivies and big privates like USC,
Stanford, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Duke, etc. aren't on here).
Despite only being public schools on here, I think this gives us
a very good idea of where we're at.
Among FCS schools (top 5):
JMU #59 overall (You get what you pay for clearly, they won the
FCS natty this year)
Delaware #77 overall
UC Davis #82 overall
Stony Brook #90 overall
New Hampshire #99 overall
The schools immediately ahead of us and behind us as far as
overall athletic budgets are:
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
And here are all the FBS schools that are below us in terms of
overall revenue, plus North Dakota State just for the hell of it
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
104
105
106
108
109
112
114
117
118
119
120
121
124
126
127
...
170
Buffalo is #78 on this list just behind Delaware and despite
being FBS their total revenue is only 3 million a year more than
ours.
Despite being FCS, we're already in the top 2/3rds of the public
schools in the G5 in terms of athletic department budgets and
spending. Including outspending several Mountain West teams.
Some of these programs are quite good too. I take this to mean
that we could move to FBS tomorrow and still field a competitive
program without spending an additional dime of money if we chose
to do so. FBS obviously would have increased travel costs,
scholarship awards, stadium expansion, etc. so our budget would
have to rise, but so would our revenues due to the vastly
increased visibility of being FBS. This was quite eye opening to
me since despite not performing like it, we're at the very top
of FCS in athletic spending and are already well positioned for
the big time. We just need to improve our stadium, and finally
get that invite. Winning some football games in the mean time
would also greatly help (Get Priore OUT!!).
I also find it fascinating how with the exception of UC Davis
(darkhorse Pac-12 expansion candidate in the far future), the
top 5 schools in the FCS are all in the CAA and all have been
rumored to want to move up to FBS and form a new conference.
Very interesting indeed.
Source:
HTML http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
#Post#: 18644--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCAA Athletic Department Budgets for Public Universities (US
A Today)
By: Hammertime Date: July 6, 2017, 6:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=VA_Seawolf link=topic=616.msg18643#msg18643
date=1499379628]
USA Today compiled a list of the Athletic department revenues
and expenses as well as the % of the budget that's subsidized.
There's some VERY interesting data in here to say the least.
This is for the 2015-16 school year. Note that this is only for
public schools as they're required to release the data, but
privates aren't (so the Ivies and big privates like USC,
Stanford, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Duke, etc. aren't on here).
Despite only being public schools on here, I think this gives us
a very good idea of where we're at.
Among FCS schools (top 5):
JMU #59 overall (You get what you pay for clearly, they won the
FCS natty this year)
Delaware #77 overall
UC Davis #82 overall
Stony Brook #90 overall
New Hampshire #99 overall
The schools immediately ahead of us and behind us as far as
overall athletic budgets are:
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
And here are all the FBS schools that are below us in terms of
overall revenue, plus North Dakota State just for the hell of it
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
104
105
106
108
109
112
114
117
118
119
120
121
124
126
127
...
170
Buffalo is #78 on this list just behind Delaware and despite
being FBS their total revenue is only 3 million a year more than
ours.
Despite being FCS, we're already in the top 2/3rds of the public
schools in the G5 in terms of athletic department budgets and
spending. Including outspending several Mountain West teams.
Some of these programs are quite good too. I take this to mean
that we could move to FBS tomorrow and still field a competitive
program without spending an additional dime of money if we chose
to do so. FBS obviously would have increased travel costs,
scholarship awards, stadium expansion, etc. so our budget would
have to rise, but so would our revenues due to the vastly
increased visibility of being FBS. This was quite eye opening to
me since despite not performing like it, we're at the very top
of FCS in athletic spending and are already well positioned for
the big time. We just need to improve our stadium, and finally
get that invite. Winning some football games in the mean time
would also greatly help (Get Priore OUT!!).
I also find it fascinating how with the exception of UC Davis
(darkhorse Pac-12 expansion candidate in the far future), the
top 5 schools in the FCS are all in the CAA and all have been
rumored to want to move up to FBS and form a new conference.
Very interesting indeed.
Source:
HTML http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
[/quote]
Good investigated work VA seawolf. Get Priore out and SB could
go FBS within 10 years, if they choose to do so..
#Post#: 18645--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCAA Athletic Department Budgets for Public Universities (US
A Today)
By: Seawolf97 Date: July 6, 2017, 7:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is good information and keeps things in perspective as to
where we stand. Good job!
*****************************************************