Finances of Final Four Teams

[Kung Wu]

This article is from last April, and was probably posted here, but this is interesting to look at in retrospect:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2013/04/02/movers-and-shockers-a-financial-comparison-of-2013s-final-four/

We were just a bad call and a bucket away from being able to write this headline: $5M Shockers bust $42M Cardinals.

But something else popped out at me. Only 25.6% of WSU's entire athletic budget goes toward basketball. That's sort of amazing that our university spreads the money among all of its programs so much. It seems at first glance that most schools put a much larger percentage of their total revenues on their marquee program. Is that just because our budget is so much smaller relative to other major programs and we sort of have to do that, or is it a philosophical difference?

[pogo]

Small budget would explain part of it but I do believe its in large part due to spreading the wealth among all the sports. We win the all sports trophy on a regular basis and I don't think its just dumb luck. Remember that 3G has his auction and golf tournament that helps cover expenses in the basketball program that would have to come from the athletic budget in some form which would impact the non revenue producing sports or would have to be pared down.

[Kung Wu]

Remember that 3G has his auction and golf tournament that helps cover expenses in the basketball program that would have to come from the athletic budget in some form which would impact the non revenue producing sports or would have to be pared down.

Ah, so the revenue generated by the auction and golf tourney aren't included as revenues in the final athletic budget? I've never really paid attention to that stuff.

[moshock]

This article is from last April, and was probably posted here, but this is interesting to look at in retrospect:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2013/04/02/movers-and-shockers-a-financial-comparison-of-2013s-final-four/

We were just a bad call and a bucket away from being able to write this headline: $5M Shockers bust $42M Cardinals.

But something else popped out at me. Only 25.6% of WSU's entire athletic budget goes toward basketball. That's sort of amazing that our university spreads the money among all of its programs so much. It seems at first glance that most schools put a much larger percentage of their total revenues on their marquee program. Is that just because our budget is so much smaller relative to other major programs and we sort of have to do that, or is it a philosophical difference?

How does a university spend $42M on a basketball program ?

[1972Shocker]

How does a university spend $42M on a basketball program ?

They didn't. $42 million was their revenues that reportedly generated a profit of $27 million meaning they spend $15 million on the basketball program. I think about $6 million of that spending goes into Rick Pitino's pocket.

[Dan]

is the $42M the revenue or the expense?

[Rlh04d]

Profits tend to get stockpiled until they're spent in one lump sum. FSU spent a number of years of profits on their new Indoor Practice Facility (which then showed up as a "loss" in financial reports, which sparked a pretty entertaining meltdown).

Louisville's profits will end up going to arena renovations, practice facilities, locker rooms, etc. rather than any day to day operations. Pitino's salary is probably the biggest real cost to them.

[Kung Wu]

How does a university spend $42M on a basketball program ?

They didn't. $42 million was their revenues that reportedly generated a profit of $27 million meaning they spend $15 million on the basketball program. I think about $6 million of that spending goes into Rick Pitino's pocket.

Probably $3 million of it goes to paying folks in Tennessee to parade around in Louisville t-shirts in order to put on a show of force for the UK fans.

[owenc]

But something else popped out at me. Only 25.6% of WSU's entire athletic budget goes toward basketball. That's sort of amazing that our university spreads the money among all of its programs so much. It seems at first glance that most schools put a much larger percentage of their total revenues on their marquee program. Is that just because our budget is so much smaller relative to other major programs and we sort of have to do that, or is it a philosophical difference?

Note the 25.6% number is revenue not expenses. But expenses are actually even lower at 23.7% since the basketball program makes a small profit.

Keep in mind though that with Title IX rules it would be hard for any one men's sport to consume too much of the budget. Even a crazy lopsided school like Alabama only speeds about 37% of its budget on football. Auburn is 34%.

Football is also normally king, so WSU's lack of a football team actually means the basketball team gets a higher share of the budget than at most schools. Hell even KU only spends about 16% of their budget on basketball because they spend almost twice as much on football as basketball (with next to nothing to show for it).

That is one of the reasons bringing back football would be so hard. Even if you eliminated every men's sport but basketball that would only leave about $3M for football before you started cutting into the male/female spending ratio.

[pogo]

That is why belonging to a bcs conference is such a great deal. Schools like ku that don't have successful football programs still share the wealth from the tv contracts and bowl revenues that the other conference member teams play in. For WSU it would be next to impossible to bring football back unless some source of revenue not now available became available.

[Signman]

Then maybe KU should drop football.

Note the 25.6% number is revenue not expenses. But expenses are actually even lower at 23.7% since the basketball program makes a small profit.

Keep in mind though that with Title IX rules it would be hard for any one men's sport to consume too much of the budget. Even a crazy lopsided school like Alabama only speeds about 37% of its budget on football. Auburn is 34%.

Football is also normally king, so WSU's lack of a football team actually means the basketball team gets a higher share of the budget than at most schools. Hell even KU only spends about 16% of their budget on basketball because they spend almost twice as much on football as basketball (with next to nothing to show for it).

That is one of the reasons bringing back football would be so hard. Even if you eliminated every men's sport but basketball that would only leave about $3M for football before you started cutting into the male/female spending ratio.

[Roundhouse Renegade]

Interesting to see the disparity. We definitely have innate resources that many schools our size simply don't possess.

[shocktheheart]

Interesting to see the disparity. We definitely have innate resources that many schools our size simply don't possess.

If you mean on April 6th as today you are correct!

[lostshocker]

Interesting to see the disparity. We definitely have innate resources that many schools our size simply don't possess.

that's dated 4/6/2013.

[Roundhouse Renegade]

lol its also gone