UConn Athletics: Where the $72 million budget was spent in 2015 (CT Mirror)

[huskymedic]

>>The University of Connecticut spent $27.2 million last year subsidizing its sports teams and programs – the third highest amount in the nation among public schools with Division 1 sports teams. Only Rutgers University and James Madison University subsidized athletics more, a review released Monday by the Chronicle for Higher Education found.

USA Today routinely ranks UConn’s subsidies among the highest in the nation. (Read more about that here.)

The athletic department’s budget has steadily increased over the years, from $17 million in 1995 to $72 million in fiscal 2015. Football has the largest budget ($15 million) followed by men’s basketball ($9 million) and then women’s basketball ($7 million). Just under one-fifth of the department’s budget covers athletic scholarships.<<
(chart is interactive in this link)

 

[whaler11]

LOL at the admin salary bucket.

 

[MattMang23]

I expect the orange section to grow in the 2017 analysis.

By the way, what is "equiptment" or "game epenses?"

 

[whaler11]

I expect the orange section to grow in the 2017 analysis.

By the way, what is "equiptment" or "game epenses?"

I'd love to see the breakdown of the football game expenses.

Also some revenue numbers against the categories.

 

[CL82]

Interesting article.

Did I miss athletic department revenue? Is that the net of amount spent and the amount of the student subsidy? What about our Nike contract and our SNY money? Is there a breakout for club and intermural sports? What about other student use of the facilities?

I'll note that if UConn were in P5 conference, as we were, effectively, prior to the demise of the Big East, our student subsidy would be eliminated. More than anything else, that is what causes the shortfall.

 

[MattMang23]

I'll note that if UConn were in P5 conference, as we were, effectively, prior to the demise of the Big East, our student subsidy would be eliminated. More than anything else, that is what causes the shortfall.

Agree. It's insane that Rutgers has a higher subsidy. Totally embarrassing.

 

[MattMang23]

I'd love to see the breakdown of the football game expenses.

Also some revenue numbers against the categories.

Oh God. It can't be possible that football generated any revenue, and yet, isn't our AD in the black every year?

Imagine what the expenses were to play the Tulane game...

 

[cubuffsdoug]

Agree. It's insane that Rutgers has a higher subsidy. Totally embarrassing.

Actually, UConn is higher now. Rutgers has being cutting its subsidy that last 2 years as they get small bumps in money from the Big Ten, fundraising and expand other sources of revenue. It's down to $20 million from a nation wide high of $35 million. They hope to be subsidy neutral or close to it by the time they receive a full Big Ten share in 2020 which is expected to be in the range of $50 million.

 

[MattMang23]

Actually, UConn is higher now. Rutgers has being cutting its subsidy that last 2 years as they get small bumps in money from the Big Ten, fundraising and expand other sources of revenue. It's down to $20 million from a nation wide high of $35 million. They hope to be subsidy neutral or close to it by the time they receive a full Big Ten share in 2020 which is expected to be in the range of $50 million.

I would freaking hope so. They're a joke to still be subsidizing as much as they are now, anyway. Even on a partial B1G share, it's absurd. A partial B1G share is still more than they have ever made. Dumpster fire.

 

[cubuffsdoug]

I would freaking hope so. They're a joke to still be subsidizing as much as they are now, anyway. Even on a partial B1G share, it's absurd. A partial B1G share is still more than they have ever made. Dumpster fire.

Rutgers payout is the same as it was when they were in the BE/AAC until they are fully invested into the Big Ten. There is a wait period as you pay into the Big Ten Network. Maryland took money upfront to cover cost for leaving the ACC. When they are fully invested Maryland will have to pay back the borrowed money which means they get $35 million instead of a full share of $50 million for the next 7 years starting in 2021. Maryland is making more than Nebraska ($17 million) at $30 million right now. Maryland came into the Big Ten making around $17/18 million a year. They will pay for it in the end. Meanwhile, Nebraska is now a fully invested member and will make $50 million with the new TV in place this year. Rutgers didn't take money upfront like Maryland. Rutgers left the AAC making around $8 million (tv, etc.) a year and that is where they started 2 years ago in their first year of the Big Ten. This year I believe they are around $14 million. It will continue to uptick a little like a $1 million or so each of the next 3 seasons before it jumps to $50 million.

 

[whaler11]

TIL.

Rutgers doesn't teach paragraphs.

 

[NavinRJohnson]

No marketing on the football side? No wonder we can't fill The Rent.

 

[MattMang23]

Rutgers payout is the same as it was when they were in the BE/AAC until they are fully invested into the Big Ten. There is a wait period as you pay into the Big Ten Network. Maryland took money upfront to cover cost for leaving the ACC. When they are fully invested Maryland will have to pay back the borrowed money which means they get $35 million instead of a full share of $50 million for the next 7 years starting in 2021. Maryland is making more than Nebraska ($17 million) at $30 million right now. Maryland came into the Big Ten making around $17/18 million a year. They will pay for it in the end. Meanwhile, Nebraska is now a fully invested member and will make $50 million with the new TV in place this year. Rutgers didn't take money upfront like Maryland. Rutgers left the AAC making around $8 million (tv, etc.) a year and that is where they started 2 years ago in their first year of the Big Ten. This year I believe they are around $14 million. It will continue to uptick a little like a $1 million or so each of the next 3 seasons before it jumps to $50 million.

Good for them. Again, it is a joke they need to subsidize as much as they do, even if they are making the same amount as they were under the old Big East contract (which they're not, as even you pointed out, the lowest amount they've ever made in the B1G is equal to the amount they were making when they left the AAC).

You know how much UConn subsidized when we were making Big East money? In 2006, our subsidy was 10.6 mill. It was 14.5 mill in 2010.

What was Rutgers' 2010 subsidy? 26.86 mill. They are a joke. They don't get a pass for subsidizing as much as they do right now. This is an historical trend for them, and increased payouts hasn't changed anything, which is absurd.

All figures found here:

UConn: UConn Athletics Subsidy Ranks Second Among BCS Schools

 

[J187Money]

No marketing on the football side? No wonder we can't fill The Rent.

They had an agency out of Baltimore that they used for marketing when the Rent first opened. The head of the agency swears that the early success was heavily influenced by the ad campaigns, and not just organic excitement. Marketing spend decreased significantly in recent years, but on field performance has been bad also. Not sure how much marketing would help now, but someone should do a CBA now that we have a new coach.

 

[J187Money]

The question I asked elsewhere is partially answered here. If the football program costs roughly $15M to run, what would it cost to run an FCS program? Certainly more than $5M. And if you are conservative on current ticket sales, saying we do 20K/game @$25 average for 6 games that's $3M, most of which would go away in an FCS program. So if the difference between running an FBS program at our level or an FCS program is somewhere between $5-$10M - it would be penny-wise and pound-foolish to do so. People act as if we have a $27M subsidy because we went 1-A. That just isn't true. We would still have a subsidy if we killed football.

There is a difference between not having millions laying around to buy out coaches and not having enough money to run a program. I've always thought the "financial doomsday" people have been way overstating the case.

 

[NavinRJohnson]

They had an agency out of Baltimore that they used for marketing when the Rent first opened. The head of the agency swears that the early success was heavily influenced by the ad campaigns, and not just organic excitement. Marketing spend decreased significantly in recent years, but on field performance has been bad also. Not sure how much marketing would help now, but someone should do a CBA now that we have a new coach.

The product has been awful. I get that. Even a little marketing could help.

 

[cubuffsdoug]

Good for them. Again, it is a joke they need to subsidize as much as they do, even if they are making the same amount as they were under the old Big East contract (which they're not, as even you pointed out, the lowest amount they've ever made in the B1G is equal to the amount they were making when they left the AAC).

You know how much UConn subsidized when we were making Big East money? In 2006, our subsidy was 10.6 mill. It was 14.5 mill in 2010.

What was Rutgers' 2010 subsidy? 26.86 mill. They are a joke. They don't get a pass for subsidizing as much as they do right now. This is an historical trend for them, and increased payouts hasn't changed anything, which is absurd.

All figures found here:

UConn: UConn Athletics Subsidy Ranks Second Among BCS Schools

That one is a little dated. Try this one: USA TODAY Sports USA Today (2014-2015) listed UConn with subsidies of $28 million and Rutgers with $23 million. UConn and Rutgers have roughly the same amount of revenue. Subsidies account for 38% of UConn's revenue while Rutgers accounts for 33%. I'm not sure how UConn keeps it books, but I know Rutgers is screwed up. I know they have a few one time items on the books for 2014, 2015 and 2016 for payments to the AAC and debt services outside the norm that should come off the books. Also, Rutgers needs to keep its books (accounting) the same way 95% of colleges do. If they did Rutgers subsidies would be more like $7 million to $8 million right now. Anyway, Rutgers is projected to be reduce subsidy to under $20 million in 2017. The school president has forced the athletic dept. to cut $1 million to $1.5 million yearly in subsidies to get to subsidy neutral or close to it by the time they earn a full Big Ten share.

FYI: Rutgers is able to close the gap since they cut several sports. At one time Rutgers had 27 programs which is a drain on the pocket since most are non-revenue sports. Rutgers still offers 24 sports.

 

[huskymedic]

No marketing on the football side? No wonder we can't fill The Rent.

It appears all marketing is captured in the "overhead" bucket on the far right. None of the programs that are broken out appear to have a specific marketing allocation.

 

[IMind]

Which one is the cross country team... I've been told repeatedly that it accounts for a major portion of the budget.

 

[J187Money]

Which one is the cross country team... I've been told repeatedly that it accounts for a major portion of the budget.

They better not cut it - my son is trying to walk on next year!

 

[UConnJim]

UConn really does itself a disservice by the way this data is presented. For example, intramural spending is not broken out. Also, student intramurals, club teams, students, and the general population utilize the athletic facilities, but this is included in the athletic budget. Even the Shenkman indoor football practice facility is utilized more by intramurals than by the football team, but everyone always refers to the facility as for the football team only.

 

[IMind]

They better not cut it - my son is trying to walk on next year!

That's probably the last sport they'll cut. You need a few pairs of sneakers, a bus, and dirt.... they split scholarships with track and field.

 

[huskymedic]

UND using crowdfunding to raise money for athletics

 

[MattMang23]

That one is a little dated. Try this one: USA TODAY Sports USA Today (2014-2015) listed UConn with subsidies of $28 million and Rutgers with $23 million. UConn and Rutgers have roughly the same amount of revenue. Subsidies account for 38% of UConn's revenue while Rutgers accounts for 33%. I'm not sure how UConn keeps it books, but I know Rutgers is screwed up. I know they have a few one time items on the books for 2014, 2015 and 2016 for payments to the AAC and debt services outside the norm that should come off the books. Also, Rutgers needs to keep its books (accounting) the same way 95% of colleges do. If they did Rutgers subsidies would be more like $7 million to $8 million right now. Anyway, Rutgers is projected to be reduce subsidy to under $20 million in 2017. The school president has forced the athletic dept. to cut $1 million to $1.5 million yearly in subsidies to get to subsidy neutral or close to it by the time they earn a full Big Ten share.

FYI: Rutgers is able to close the gap since they cut several sports. At one time Rutgers had 27 programs which is a drain on the pocket since most are non-revenue sports. Rutgers still offers 24 sports.

Of course my source is dated. But whether the source is from 2011 or 2014 is irrelevant as the 2006 and 2010 subsidies didn't change between 2011 and 2014.

Anywho, your source just serves to strengthen my point that Rutgers and UConn having comparable subsidies despite UConn being in the AAC and playing the likes of Tulane, ECU and Tulsa while Rutgers is getting home dates with Ohio State, Michigan and Penn St. is an embarrassment for Rutgers.

Arguing anything pro-Rutgers in this context is laughable.

And congrats to Rutgers closing the gap by cutting sports. Let me know the next time UConn cuts a sport.

 

[cubuffsdoug]

Of course my source is dated. But whether the source is from 2011 or 2014 is irrelevant as the 2006 and 2010 subsidies didn't change between 2011 and 2014.

Anywho, your source just serves to strengthen my point that Rutgers and UConn having comparable subsidies despite UConn being in the AAC and playing the likes of Tulane, ECU and Tulsa while Rutgers is getting home dates with Ohio State, Michigan and Penn St. is an embarrassment for Rutgers.

Arguing anything pro-Rutgers in this context is laughable.

And congrats to Rutgers closing the gap by cutting sports. Let me know the next time UConn cuts a sport.

First. subsidies do change quickly if you make an attempt to control it and/or reduce it. Second, UConn doesn't offer as many sports as Rutgers, but that's only part of the problem. For years both UConn and Rutgers could never generate the revenue of the Big Ten schools or SEC ones. Still, both schools attempted to keep up. Also, when you look at the method in which both schools do their accounting it leaves a lot to desire. Both schools set themselves up to be ridiculed due their methods of reporting. If both were more in line with the SEC, the Big 12 and the ACC with their accounting methods this would be a non-issue. Third, Rutgers has only been in the Big Ten 3 seasons. You surely didn't expect Rutgers to suddenly be in the black. They're trimming the fat and getting their ducks in order. Rutgers in a few years should be in line with most Big Ten schools as far as profits vs. revenue vs. subsidies.

Btw, there is no needs to poke fun of Rutgers because I didn't come here being an *sshole.