What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

B12 Football revenue by school

Hugegroove

Club Member
Club Member
I realize that UT is the king of the hill when it comes to $$$ generated from football, but the difference between the north & south is more than glaring. The only other thing I will say is that ku & mizzou has seen success without having to generate almost 73m a year. + ku has a new practice facility. If you want to read the whole article, here's the link.

http://www.statesman.com/sports/content/sports/stories/other/2009/09/01/0901north.html

In the article, the B12 commissioner stated that if these numbers continue to stay this way for the next 5 years, they could consider restructuring the B12 similar to the way the B10 is currently set up. I'm not sure how that would solve anything?:keule:


Football revenues at Big 12 schools for the 2007 season, the latest available data from The Equity in Athletics Data Analysis:
South Division
School Revenue
Texas $72,952,397
Texas A&M $42,552,070
Oklahoma $40,922,446
Okla. State $23,106,517
Texas Tech $20,213,600
Baylor $11,053,460
Average $35,133,415
North Division
School Revenue
Nebraska $49,076,861
Colorado $28,755,199
Kansas State $21,900,159
Missouri $19,301,864
Iowa State $17,404,826
Kansas $14,841,115
Average $25,213,337
 
I realize that UT is the king of the hill when it comes to $$$ generated from football, but the difference between the north & south is more than glaring. The only other thing I will say is that ku & mizzou has seen success without having to generate almost 73m a year. + ku has a new practice facility. If you want to read the whole article, here's the link.

http://www.statesman.com/sports/content/sports/stories/other/2009/09/01/0901north.html

In the article, the B12 commissioner stated that if these numbers continue to stay this way for the next 5 years, they could consider restructuring the B12 similar to the way the B10 is currently set up. I'm not sure how that would solve anything?:keule:


Football revenues at Big 12 schools for the 2007 season, the latest available data from The Equity in Athletics Data Analysis:
South Division
School Revenue
Texas $72,952,397
Texas A&M $42,552,070
Oklahoma $40,922,446
Okla. State $23,106,517
Texas Tech $20,213,600
Baylor $11,053,460
Average $35,133,415
North Division
School Revenue
Nebraska $49,076,861
Colorado $28,755,199
Kansas State $21,900,159
Missouri $19,301,864
Iowa State $17,404,826
Kansas $14,841,115
Average $25,213,337

It's probably worth pointing out that if they split the conference between the top $ teams and the low $ teams, we would be in the division with the big budget teams. And wouldn't even be the lowest revenue team in it... But how crazy is it that if you added CUs revenue to Oklahoma's, you'd still be over $3 million behind Texass???

Seeing those numbers I'm thinking maybe Mack should be fired if he doesn't win the Big XII every single season... :wow:
 
I'd like to know the breakdown of how Texas is generating that revenue into these categories:
Ticket Sales - General Admissions
Luxury Box fees
Parking
Network contracts
Bowl Appearances
Licensing (clothing, other retail use of the mutant cow)
Donations from boosters
Other (Spring game, camps, returns on investments)
 
I'd add that if Texas were excluded from the South's calculations, the south's average would be more in line with the North.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can't stand the current North/South imbalance. The only way to rectify it is on the field.

Where the **** does the B12 Commish get off saying that the South has been dominant "except for the first three years of the conference"? According to what criteria? By my count, the North was dominant the first 6 years, the South dominant the last seven years. No fracking respect. UT and OU were horrific most of the '90s.
 
I'd imagine that CU's revenues have risen since 2007 due to the new TV contract with the Big 12 and one that rewards schools for the number of TV apperances.
 
I'd imagine that CU's revenues have risen since 2007 due to the new TV contract with the Big 12 and one that rewards schools for the number of TV apperances.


Makes sense. Of course most of the other schools at the top probably would have risen too. It wouldn't surprise me if aTm has dropped a spot or two, though.... :huh:
 
the CU number seems a little off to me based on a total AD budget of 40-45million.
 
That's FOOTBALL REVENUE ONLY


****-knocker, I was under the impression that our other sports basically didnt produce revenue and that most lost money. I am also under the impression that TV revenue generated by televising football games should be attributed to that program. So what I'd like to know is where the other $14million comes from.
 
Kansas State is a little bit of a surprise with their recent track record... I know not much to do in Manhattan
 
****-knocker, I was under the impression that our other sports basically didnt produce revenue and that most lost money. I am also under the impression that TV revenue generated by televising football games should be attributed to that program. So what I'd like to know is where the other $14million comes from.

Well, the hoops program probably generates a fair amount of revenue if you count CU's share of NCAA tourney money, TV money etc. that the conference generates. Like you, I would assume that that money is getting allocated to each sport, although I seem to remember that the figures coming from CU didn't used to work that way....
 
Alot of the success of the Big 12 South mirrors the rest of the country. The better football teams and programs for the last 10 years have been concentrated in the Southern United States. Things run in cycles, but when you have 90,000 + seat stadiums and very large fan bases - that's a hard situation to fight for a school with a 50,000 seat stadium and an average size fan base. I just don't see the Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, LSU, Alabama, and USC's suddenly becomming programs with only 60,000 or 65,000 in attendence.
 
I can't stand the current North/South imbalance. The only way to rectify it is on the field.

Where the **** does the B12 Commish get off saying that the South has been dominant "except for the first three years of the conference"? According to what criteria? By my count, the North was dominant the first 6 years, the South dominant the last seven years. No fracking respect. UT and OU were horrific most of the '90s.

I agree. This Big 12 commish is a clown.. The two best coaches in the league are Mack and Stoops so its obvious that the South would be much more powerful.. But these thing can become cyclical. During the 90's the SEC West was about as bad as the North was for about 8 years(sprinkled in with a couple of strong Bama teams) until Saban got to LSU and Tuberville moved to Auburn from Miss....

I would be strongly against a Big Ten alignment and any talk about it.... Why should we be like the Big PreTENd?
 
Last edited:
I can't stand the current North/South imbalance. The only way to rectify it is on the field.

Where the **** does the B12 Commish get off saying that the South has been dominant "except for the first three years of the conference"? According to what criteria? By my count, the North was dominant the first 6 years, the South dominant the last seven years. No fracking respect. UT and OU were horrific most of the '90s.
Big 12's first year was 1996 which was only a few years prior to the Texas/OU football renaissance. Tom Osborn was right about letting the Texas schools into the Big 8. It forever changed the balance of power by letting UT and OU back onto the A-list of every top-100 player in Texas. If you track it you will see that it was only a matter of a couple of recruiting years following the initial Big-12 season and OU and Texas were back to dominance with NU and CU suffering.
 
Alot of the success of the Big 12 South mirrors the rest of the country. The better football teams and programs for the last 10 years have been concentrated in the Southern United States. Things run in cycles, but when you have 90,000 + seat stadiums and very large fan bases - that's a hard situation to fight for a school with a 50,000 seat stadium and an average size fan base. I just don't see the Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, LSU, Alabama, and USC's suddenly becomming programs with only 60,000 or 65,000 in attendence.


when SC turned the corner they were averaging a very CU like 52K a game.
 
when SC turned the corner they were averaging a very CU like 52K a game.

When I lived in SD (96-97, 200-2004, 2005-2006), I would occassionally road trip to SC (to root against them) to get my football fix. It was the lamest football environment! The Collisseum sucks, the crowd is lacklaster--the whole thing blows.

And yes, early on the crowds were pretty small. Lame.
 
When I lived in SD (96-97, 200-2004, 2005-2006), I would occassionally road trip to SC (to root against them) to get my football fix. It was the lamest football environment! The Collisseum sucks, the crowd is lacklaster--the whole thing blows.

And yes, early on the crowds were pretty small. Lame.
That's sunny, funny, L A. My first job after I graduated from CU was in Santa Monica. L A is not a football city - that's why 2 pro teams have left. Hey dude - $uck the ball game, lets go to the beach and get high!:lol:
They do draw large crowds now, but if they start losing, that could change. I just don't see that happening with Pete Carroll.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top