PSU Athletic Department Revenues and Expenditures 2005 - 2016

[Alan1]

PSU Athletic Department Revenues and Expenditures 2005 - 2016
Year Ticket Sales Contributions Rights/Licensing Student Fees School Funds Other Total Revenues
2016 $504,551 $737,810 $950,515 $3,373,539 $6,816,747 $1,369,090 $13,752,252
2015 $224,824 $546,017 $806,610 $3,438,094 $6,439,636 $1,661,905 $13,117,086
2014 $250,586 $589,178 $843,370 $3,702,909 $6,338,788 $1,677,547 $13,402,378
2013 $246,381 $555,267 $991,700 $3,786,759 $5,873,174 $1,954,867 $13,408,148
2012 $269,187 $332,689 $921,731 $3,906,150 $5,615,861 $1,932,455 $12,978,073
2011 $253,044 $502,254 $883,159 $3,337,086 $5,297,435 $1,140,834 $11,413,812
2010 $255,945 $796,857 $880,941 $3,181,510 $4,775,055 $597,873 $10,488,181
2009 $425,877 $904,556 $781,557 $3,116,382 $4,362,269 $631,934 $10,222,575
2008 $422,488 $1,206,447 $853,753 $2,826,954 $4,075,771 $502,267 $9,887,680
2007 $327,795 $1,507,320 $675,303 $2,591,591 $3,391,243 $1,281,475 $9,774,727
2006 $110,405 $665,298 $493,286 $2,538,115 $3,877,844 $555,470 $8,240,418
2005 $288,754 $746,651 $718,488 $2,338,867 $3,518,327 $385,798 $7,996,885

Year Coaching/Staff Scholarships Facilities/Overhead Other Total Expenses
2016 $5,264,789 $4,663,896 $1,361,641 $3,238,859 $14,529,185
2015 $5,113,193 $4,697,016 $1,238,464 $4,051,662 $15,100,335
2014 $4,871,193 $4,395,720 $591,995 $4,543,012 $14,401,920
2013 $4,735,743 $4,372,879 $676,950 $3,902,221 $13,687,793
2012 $4,561,119 $4,076,616 $652,997 $3,688,751 $12,979,483
2011 $3,835,769 $3,595,222 $282,237 $3,588,972 $11,302,200
2010 $3,973,140 $3,358,605 $213,502 $3,118,139 $10,663,386
2009 $3,918,245 $2,925,263 $220,263 $3,259,212 $10,322,983
2008 $3,612,044 $2,724,350 $232,694 $3,360,197 $9,929,285
2007 $3,231,500 $2,675,487 $179,828 $3,561,915 $9,648,730
2006 $3,170,265 $2,504,130 $223,455 $2,194,955 $8,092,805
2005 $2,866,409 $2,511,789 $335,179 $2,352,731 $8,066,108

 

[ManOfVision]

Very interesting. I wonder why ticket sales spiked so much last year over the last few years. Was that just from football coming off of a good 2015 season?

 

[Alan1]

Very interesting. I wonder why ticket sales spiked so much last year over the last few years. Was that just from football coming off of a good 2015 season?

I believe the numbers come from reports filed with the NCAA in June or July. So the 2016 numbers would be from the 2015-2016 season. The spike is most likely reflects our magical 2015 football season.

 

[Pounder]

A not-so-side question: where's the web page describing how much of student fees goes towards athletics?

Kind of got curious after going over my daughter's statement recently, but I seem to have hit a dead page.

 

[Alan1]

I don't know. The numbers I posted are from institutional reports filed with the NCAA.

 

[bigskyconf]

The spike is most likely reflects our magical 2015 football season.

Not necessarily. I don't know how PSU accounts for the self-sustaining programs, but I would not think they would lump them all together with those programs that are not self-sustaining. I would think the auditors would want to see that football revenue covers football expense, and not covering say, lacrosse expenses.

My guess is football, being a self-sustaining program, is not included in the general athletic department accounts.

 

[Alan1]

The spike is most likely reflects our magical 2015 football season.

Not necessarily. I don't know how PSU accounts for the self-sustaining programs, but I would not think they would lump them all together with those programs that are not self-sustaining. I would think the auditors would want to see that football revenue covers football expense, and not covering say, lacrosse expenses.

My guess is football, being a self-sustaining program, is not included in the general athletic department accounts.

This is what we reported to the NCAA for the athletic department. If football is not included that is the NCAA's problem.

 

[Pounder]

The spike is most likely reflects our magical 2015 football season.

Not necessarily. I don't know how PSU accounts for the self-sustaining programs, but I would not think they would lump them all together with those programs that are not self-sustaining. I would think the auditors would want to see that football revenue covers football expense, and not covering say, lacrosse expenses.

My guess is football, being a self-sustaining program, is not included in the general athletic department accounts.

This is what we reported to the NCAA for the athletic department. If football is not included that is the NCAA's problem.

If the NCAA finds out something is missing that they deem necessary to be reported, trust me, it'll abso-freaking-lutely be Portland State's problem.

However: these aren't uniformly calculated from school to school, though states MIGHT have specific requirements and formats that each school in a state has to report. Also, that's not true in every state. For instance, University of Idaho reports vending machine income into the athletic department in order to not show a deficit one year (or maybe more). That's not something the NCAA judges; that's for the state of Idaho to OK or punish.

I don't think the NCAA audits these numbers. The auditors only come out if there's an investigation; if they find something in investigation that wasn't "self-reported," that's when the real penalties hit. I'm damn sure excluding football revenue from these numbers would be seen by everyone as a problem.

 

[Alan1]

@Pounder, I do believe the report noted did include football's revenues and expenditures. I was really just responding to @bigskyconf's belief that football, being a "self-sustaining program, may not be included in the general athletic department accounts. The actual report filed is close to 20 pages and requires the detailed information on each sport's revenue sources and categorized expenditures.

 

[Pounder]

I was trying to tell a story in response to both of you. I've listened to this kind of stuff for years. Kind of a context.

Now... did you find that data on a web page? It'd be interesting to see the breakdown.

 

[bigskyconf]

@Pounder, I do believe the report noted did include football's revenues and expenditures. I was really just responding to @bigskyconf's belief that football, being a "self-sustaining program, may not be included in the general athletic department accounts. The actual report filed is close to 20 pages and requires the detailed information on each sport's revenue sources and categorized expenditures.

The report should have the detailed information on each sport. I wasn't being too clear on my response. I wasn't referring to the NCAA auditors but rather the internal auditors that PSU employs to review the books before they are submitted. To me, it seems to be poor accounting policy to allow all programs, self-sustaining and not, to be grouped together without the breakdown for each sport, as it could allow the money that the self-sustaining sport earns to cover any losses that the non self-sustaining programs might incur. Some schools do separate them and use "general" to apply to those non self sustaining (and "football" for football, "basketball-mens" for men's basketball). I don't know if PSU does this or not. If not, it seems to be more work to determine each year if football (for example) actually meets the edict of "self-sustaining".

 

[Alan1]

I was trying to tell a story in response to both of you. I've listened to this kind of stuff for years. Kind of a context.

Now... did you find that data on a web page? It'd be interesting to see the breakdown.

Here is the link to the 2014 report to the NCAA: https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/ncaa-subsidies-main#id=details_209807

For a detailed look click on "download this institution's documents."

 

[martymoose]

I was trying to tell a story in response to both of you. I've listened to this kind of stuff for years. Kind of a context.

Now... did you find that data on a web page? It'd be interesting to see the breakdown.

Here is the link to the 2014 report to the NCAA: https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/ncaa-subsidies-main#id=details_209807

For a detailed look click on "download this institution's documents."

Thanks for that. Very interesting.

A bit sad to see that a program like Alabama making so much in football using 6m in subsidies for 2014, but then Oregon is probably just as bad with 2.15m in subsidies and the highest revenue for that same year. Good for the six D1 athletic departments that didn't use any subsidies at all.

 

[bigskyconf]

I was trying to tell a story in response to both of you. I've listened to this kind of stuff for years. Kind of a context.

Now... did you find that data on a web page? It'd be interesting to see the breakdown.

Here is the link to the 2014 report to the NCAA: https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/ncaa-subsidies-main#id=details_209807

For a detailed look click on "download this institution's documents."

The story accompanying it is also a really good read. The schools cited; Georgia State, Charlotte and UTSA, had been under pressure to move up to DI, even though it meant to get football up and running almost immediately. It does take money to move up to DI and when you try to do it overnight (or close to it), everyone even remotely affiliated with the university is expected to pay. Since the story has come out, all three schools are currently in C-USA, but it is hard to say if they are better off doing it on a steep ascent.

And then there is Idaho, of course, who after the last 20 years trying to chase the same idea of being relevant in the FBS has finally given up and will return to the Big Sky next season. They should never have left the conference to begin with.