@Mwfan1921, outside of Div1-A, athletic programs tend to be money losers if you don’t count donations and attracting students, and that probably is minimal except at tiny nonselective LACs where getting a good number of student-athletes who are willing to pay (at least enough to sustain the college) in order to be a (NCAA) college athlete is part of their revenue strategy.
Sports being a money loser at many schools makes my point…athletic department cuts are coming at many schools and might include entire sports teams.
Regarding the full pay revenue strategy…schools will have to closely analyze that, but overall things aren’t looking good for tiny, non-selective LACs for many reasons.
What portion of the revenues are ticket revenues, which are (probably) gone anyway?
@“Cardinal Fang”: It depends on the program. Those powerhouse name-brand programs that fill 100K stadiums every football home game can make close to $10M per game in revenue. Obviously the less popular programs that average 30K a home game (and can charge much less per ticket) bring in considerably less.
But TV revenue is also substantial. I believe a full share of the Big Ten conference revenue-sharing share is in the $40-50M range, and that is mostly TV revenue.
No live attendance may also mean greater TV/streaming revenue. Especially if programs get creative and start selling online VIP packages (they can get creative about what perks they can attach to those) to the big spenders who would be shelling out a ton for box seats.
And some revenue is much better than no revenue.
It’s also possible that live attendance may still be allowed but at substantially smaller capacity with spacing out (most football stadiums are outdoors, after all), which would mean far fewer tickets but potentially much more expensive prices at the powerhouses.
Games may be spread out too. If you have little/no live attendance, there’s less reason for big games to all be on the weekend.
Weekend games are good for high TV & Cable viewership numbers. But, if the TV networks want more frequent games, then college football might end up like pro-football with games played on 3 different days per week. (Pro football is played on Sundays, Mondays, & Thursdays. Sometimes on Saturdays as well.)
At the most competitive D-I schools, football & men’s basketball are the sports which generate surplus revenue. Since men’s basketball is played indoors, ticket revenue is likely to be heavily impacted due to “social distancing”.
Power Five Conference revenue payout reported in 2019:
Big Ten $51.1 million for 12 of the 14 schools. Most recent additions–Maryland & Rutgers–receive full share payouts in 2020-2021 season.
SEC $43.7 million for 13 schools. Ole Miss may have received less due to its post season play ban.
Big 12 $36.5 million per school.
ACC paid between $25.3 million to $30.7 million per school.
PAC 12 paid $30.9 million per school.
Although Notre Dame remains as an independent school for football, it is an ACC member for other sports.
Yep, I suspect this is really more about TV revenue than ticket sales. Here on the west coast, schools have been screwing ticket holders for years by moving to night games for TV. I’m a UW grad and I got sick of driving a couple hours to Seattle in November to attend a 7:30 game in the cold and rain and not get home until 2 am or later.
I expect they will happily hold games with minimal fans if they can keep their TV contracts in the fall. It wouldn’t be empty stadiums, but they could jack the ticket prices and sell every 3rd or 4th seat and close the concession stands so there is no queuing, maybe have food deliveries to the seats. That kind of thing.
Question is will ABC and ESPN still pay the same price to put all the games on TV if there are far fewer fans at the games? I expect so, as people are so starved for sports and running out of new Netflix content.
If the NFL Draft is an indicator of potential TV viewership, then ABC / ESPN may pay more for TV rights as the NFL Draft set viewership records to watch the NFL commisioner read names off of an index card.
Aren’t TV contracts already in place for this upcoming season?
To the best of my knowledge each of the Power 5 Conferences as well as Notre Dame negotiate their own TV contracts.
https://espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/19743196/why-2023-next-big-date-conference-shuffling
No doubt they are. But I expect they have a ton of wiggle room and escape clauses. Especially if the NCAA starts messing around with the season.
One thing to take into account is this numbers can mean almost anything, most d1 schools do not make money in sports, the ones who do make a ton , but I will use the case of UConn whose women’s basketball team loses money every year, the mens football team which left their conference when they moved all sports back to the big east ( the big east does not have football) , they pay the state of Connecticut roughly 4 million to play their games at " their " home stadium so on paper that is a loss but the state turns around and gives the full amount back to UConn , so some of the numbers could be a clear as mud.
University of Cincinnati already dropped their d1 mens soccer team.
Very interesting thread and stats. I need college football to comeback. Going through no March Madness almost did me in (please take with jest. Yes, I know the virus is a problem ?)
.
I think the problem is the Pac-12 conference more than the schools. The Pac-12 commissioner, Larry Scott, has totally botched the TV schedule so that you often don’t know what time a game will be played until a week or two before game day. Not only does that make it hard to know when your team is on TV, but the schools complain that it makes it hard to sell tickets.
Larry Scott also botched the TV deal so that the Pac-12 teams get very little money and very little exposure compared to Big-10 and SEC teams. I live in California and can get the Big-10 and SEC Networks on my TV provider, but I can’t get the Pac-12 Network.
Yes, but RU has already borrowed against its full share payout and will need to pay that back through 2027.
- Rutgers received $26.9 million from the Big Ten, a record amount attributable to a pair of interest-free loans executed between the state university and the conference totaling $48 million. Rutgers’ full-share Big Ten payment — which kicks in starting in 2021 following the six-year integration period — will be diminished in future years since the school is required to pay back the conference each year until 2027, records show. *
@Camasite: It would be interesting to know the amount of control given to the TV networks over football conferences & programs in addition to knowing the “escape clauses”.
Also, would be interesting to know which private law firms represent each Power 5 Conference in these contract negotiations as well as which law firm represents the “Power 6 School” Notre Dame.
Same for accounting firms as several individual Power 5 Conference member schools have repoted revenue and expenses as exactly the same amount.
P.S. I guess my idea of a “good time” is sitting down to read & pick apart contracts which are a couple hundred pages in length. 
(With a steady supply of black, heavily caffinated coffee of course.)
How much does each of these schools rely on football revenues to fund its operation (not just athletic programs)?
This seems to be common in the big ten also. Certain games you find out the time a few days prior due to TV rating games or the game of the week games. I have seen this for Michigan and I drive in from Chicago to see a game with my son at school…
@1NJParent: Great question. Certainly the revenue is used to fund the athletic programs at each school. Sports which generate revenue at these schools are typically just football & men’s basketball.
I do not know the answer to your question. It probably varies by school.
The University of Texas at Austin is the leading revenue generator. @MaineLonghorn may be able to address your question as her Dad was heavily involved in UT-Austin academics, athletics, and administration.
I will ask Dad!