Total athletic revenue 2003-2021 P5 schools
- Thread starter simply1
- Start date
We're amongst the 2 relegated P5 schools and our new conference mates from the AAC at least...we for sure would have been in Oregon St and Washington St's position had everything totally flipped on its head a couple years ago.
Are donors a factor in this? ISU usually has strong attendance in their sports and decent viewership.
Includes donations, tickets (season/non-season tickets) etc. Anything the AD takes in. Not too surprising given where our AD was for much of the 2000's. I would imagine this looks different if the time frame is over the last 10/5 years.
Agreed, to put this in perspective, I think when I was in school starting in 2006, our AD budget was around 35 million.
It would be interesting to just see the last 10 years numbers
If you looked at it for the 10 years after the significant increase in revenue from equal Big 12 payouts we would be close to the middle.
We have been over $100mm for the last couple years. We are competitive money wise with every member of the Big 16
We have been over $100mm for the last couple years. We are competitive money wise with every member of the Big 16
While technically correct, data from 10+ years ago (with this topic) is outdated and irrelevant.
Another situation of presenting selective data to push a narrative. Note he's a SEC / Alabama fan.
Also, if you don't count institutional support as revenue we would be a lot higher no matter what period of time you are looking.
Id be interested to see numbers from 2010-2023. Our AD has come so far. It’s no secret we were one of the worst programs in P5 from 1900-1999 barring a few seasons here or there. But since 2000 we have:
12 NCAA tournament appearances
5 Sweet 16s
5 Conference Tournament championships
1 Elite 8
13 bowl games
1 Big 12 title appearance
1 shared division title
Renovated our bottom tier stadium into a 61k legit P5 stadium
When fan bases make fun of us for being lousy historically I always laugh. Yes, we know we were awful last decade. But this decade we’ve been very competitive to downright good. In 2004 we put 35k fans in the stadium with the division on title on the line. We are now averaging close to 60k a game with near record ticket sales every season. Right now is the best time to join the bandwagon.
12 NCAA tournament appearances
5 Sweet 16s
5 Conference Tournament championships
1 Elite 8
13 bowl games
1 Big 12 title appearance
1 shared division title
Renovated our bottom tier stadium into a 61k legit P5 stadium
When fan bases make fun of us for being lousy historically I always laugh. Yes, we know we were awful last decade. But this decade we’ve been very competitive to downright good. In 2004 we put 35k fans in the stadium with the division on title on the line. We are now averaging close to 60k a game with near record ticket sales every season. Right now is the best time to join the bandwagon.
Factors to consider.
1. Most everything starts and stops with TV contracts/revenue. Even bottom feeders like Rutgers and Vandy are at a huge advantage being in the Big 10 and SEC (not news to anyone).
2. One of the biggest issues that makes these numbers largely irrelevant are large stadium projects that have been undertaken by several schools. While ISU has done "some" work, it pails in comparison to new projects or stadiums at Baylor, TCU, and OSU (T Boone $$$$) to name a few. Just one big stadium project with a large donation drive skews the numbers and the perception. As an example TCU built a 164 million dollar stadium and did an additional 119 million in upgrades. That's 285 millon...Baylors was 250 million. The SEZ project, by comaparison, was around 60 million.
3. That data set is too large and uses old data that should largely be considered irrelevant. Here's a list of revenues and expenditures for the last year. This list has us at 39th, ahead of every Big 12 school aside from Texas, OU, and Kansas. https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances
4. Another thing to consider is revenue "given" to the athletic fund by way of student fees or "institutional support" (ie subsidies). On the list above there were SIX teams ahead of ISU: Vtech, Utah, Cal, Zona, and ASU that were ahead of us BECAUSE of those subsidies.
I dont' have the time to sift through more data to know what's a yearly thing and how much donations factor into these numbers, but I'd put a lot more stock in this list as a representation of an AD's overall health than the 20 year data set provided by the OP. For a "second" school in a small state to be in ISU's position, with it's athetlic history is pretty remarkable. To do so without the need for subsidy is a testament to the work Pollard has done here.
Jamie isn't perfect but there needs to be a statue erected when he's finished at Iowa State. He's done a fantastic job.
1. Most everything starts and stops with TV contracts/revenue. Even bottom feeders like Rutgers and Vandy are at a huge advantage being in the Big 10 and SEC (not news to anyone).
2. One of the biggest issues that makes these numbers largely irrelevant are large stadium projects that have been undertaken by several schools. While ISU has done "some" work, it pails in comparison to new projects or stadiums at Baylor, TCU, and OSU (T Boone $$$$) to name a few. Just one big stadium project with a large donation drive skews the numbers and the perception. As an example TCU built a 164 million dollar stadium and did an additional 119 million in upgrades. That's 285 millon...Baylors was 250 million. The SEZ project, by comaparison, was around 60 million.
3. That data set is too large and uses old data that should largely be considered irrelevant. Here's a list of revenues and expenditures for the last year. This list has us at 39th, ahead of every Big 12 school aside from Texas, OU, and Kansas. https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances
4. Another thing to consider is revenue "given" to the athletic fund by way of student fees or "institutional support" (ie subsidies). On the list above there were SIX teams ahead of ISU: Vtech, Utah, Cal, Zona, and ASU that were ahead of us BECAUSE of those subsidies.
I dont' have the time to sift through more data to know what's a yearly thing and how much donations factor into these numbers, but I'd put a lot more stock in this list as a representation of an AD's overall health than the 20 year data set provided by the OP. For a "second" school in a small state to be in ISU's position, with it's athetlic history is pretty remarkable. To do so without the need for subsidy is a testament to the work Pollard has done here.
Jamie isn't perfect but there needs to be a statue erected when he's finished at Iowa State. He's done a fantastic job.
Yes. Just look at Uconn, which derives half it's budget off such support (which is nuts).
It's hard to get 'accurate' data from Baylor and TCU as they are private schools, but we are ahead of everyone not named Texas, OU, and KU (surprisingly close to KU), would be ahead of 5 P5 schools if/when removing institutional support, and within a stones throw of UNC (which is a little shocking), also when removing said support.
So yes, we are more than competitive. In fact, impressively so.
What stands out to me from the rankings is that 2x revenue doesn't come close to 2x results.
What drives all of this is football and we all know how Texas underperforms there. If you build some results based on revenue model I think we would be in top half
If you look across all sports, I am not sure we are not competitive (last 10 years) with the Wisky's, Tennessees and Auburns of the world despite 1/2 the revenu.
What drives all of this is football and we all know how Texas underperforms there. If you build some results based on revenue model I think we would be in top half
If you look across all sports, I am not sure we are not competitive (last 10 years) with the Wisky's, Tennessees and Auburns of the world despite 1/2 the revenu.
Yes. Second highest number of grads and lowest total number of donors in big12. Lots of complainers that don't write checks.