NCAA Football '12-13

[stjaba]

Texas, no surprise, is the big winner in total revenue (about 10% more than #2 Alabama) and led in ticket sales (which kinda surprised me, since Texas season tickets are only $400 and the stadium seats only 100,000 = $40M per season, while Michigan's tickets are $375 and the stadium holds 114,000 = $42.75M - not to mention OSU, whose season tickets are a whopping $600 in a 102,000-seat stadium, for a season gate of $61M).  All of those assume that all ticket-holders are season ticket holders, which isn't true, but does texas have that many fewer student tickets?

I wonder if these figures account for donations? I'm not sure how it works at other schools, but at UF there is a required donation to get non student season tickets. The required donation ranges from $100 to $2450 per seat, with the decent seats starting at $400 per seat. This is on top of the $280 season ticket price. There are also special perks if you donate 12k+ a year. I imagine luxury boxes are priced specially as well.

I imagine schools account for similar required donations separately and that might be why the numbers look off.

Edit:Should have read further down in the post. Donations and contributions are accounted for separately. I'm not surprised UF leads the way in that category.

Another funky thing I saw was that FSU beat out UF big time in royalties/sponsorships/licensing, $47 million vs. $37 million. UF is significantly more popular than FSU, and I see way more people wearing UF gear around the state. I wonder if this an artifact of accounting- e.g. corporate luxury boxes are counted towards this item at FSU, and counted towards donations at UF. Corporate deals with sports teams usually have multiple components- a deal might include for one lump sum: regular tickets, box seats, stadium signs, in-game advertising, etc. Schools might inconsistently account for this sort of revenue from corporate deals.

Anyways, since schools all do their accounting differently, and there is always a possibility of shadiness(e.g. USC's expenses exactly matching revenue) you'll never get a true apples to apples comparison, but the numbers are interesting nonetheless.

[grumbler]

I wonder if these figures account for donations? I'm not sure how it works at other schools, but at UF there is a required donation to get non student season tickets.

According to Rivals.com (http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1094191) Texas has no minimum donation which, as you say, doesn't go under ticket sales, either.

Another funky thing I saw was that FSU beat out UF big time in royalties/sponsorships/licensing, $47 million vs. $37 million. UF is significantly more popular than FSU, and I see way more people wearing UF gear around the state. I wonder if this an artifact of accounting- e.g. corporate luxury boxes are counted towards this item at FSU, and counted towards donations at UF. Corporate deals with sports teams usually have multiple components- a deal might include for one lump sum: regular tickets, box seats, stadium signs, in-game advertising, etc. Schools might inconsistently account for this sort of revenue from corporate deals.

Yeah, that's one category I am willing to chalk up to "accounting differences" (though as much for the Michigan numbers as the FSU/UF numbers).

Anyways, since schools all do their accounting differently, and there is always a possibility of shadiness(e.g. USC's expenses exactly matching revenue) you'll never get a true apples to apples comparison, but the numbers are interesting nonetheless.

Agreed.

[stjaba]

According to Rivals.com (http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1094191) Texas has no minimum donation which, as you say, doesn't go under ticket sales, either.

Perhaps Texas charges students for season tickets, and Michigan doesn't? For instance, UF charges students $111($15 per game plus $6 service fee) for season tickets.

[grumbler]

Perhaps Texas charges students for season tickets, and Michigan doesn't? For instance, UF charges students $111($15 per game plus $6 service fee) for season tickets.

Michigan charges for student tickets.  They sell every student who wants one a whole-season ticket, though, unlike some schools that only allow a given student to buy tickets to half the home games.  I don't think that is true of Texas, though.

I think it is interesting that UCLA charges only $99 for season tickets, with no required donation.

[stjaba]

I think it is interesting that UCLA charges only $99 for season tickets, with no required donation.

That doesn't surprise me. UCLA plays in the Rose Bowl, which is relatively large (90,000 capacity). It isn't the most popular team in the area. It doesn't have a particularly rabid fanbase and hasn't been relevant since the 1990's.

[grumbler]

That doesn't surprise me. UCLA plays in the Rose Bowl, which is relatively large (90,000 capacity). It isn't the most popular team in the area. It doesn't have a particularly rabid fanbase and hasn't been relevant since the 1990's.

UCLA is a huge school with an alumni base that mostly lives locally.  Their stadium isn't that large (it would be about average for an SEC team) but is located a long ways from campus.  Notre Dame hasn't been relevant since the 1990s either, and yet can charge $1740 in tickets and minimum donations and sell out every game.

I wouldn't expect UCLA to be able to charge like ND, but I would expect it to be able to charge more than Navy or Indiana.

It is interesting to note that USC's attendance has plummeted right along with UCLA's.

[Eddie Teach]

You don't get "seen" at football games. So it's Lakers >>>>>>> Clippers >>>>>>>> everybody else. 

[CountDeMoney]

It is interesting to note that USC's attendance has plummeted right along with UCLA's.

They suffer from the same malaise as every other football event in LA;  people just really aren't into it.  Rams, Chargers, even the Raiders saw it.  LA is just a shitty place for football.

[grumbler]

They suffer from the same malaise as every other football event in LA;  people just really aren't into it.  Rams, Chargers, even the Raiders saw it.  LA is just a shitty place for football.

Not sure what you mean.  USC's peak attendance was 2006, and UCLA's 2007.  How does that fit into a narrative about the Chargers or the Rams or the Raiders?  I thought the Raiders left in like 1995, the Rams in 1994, and the Chargers in 1961.

I know that LA is a crappy sports town, other than the occasional "trendy" team bump, but still don't understand why UCLA in particular has such a shitty football culture among its fans.  Sure, they've had some crappy teams lately, but lots of teams have bumpy patches and still keep their fans.  Hell, Notre Dame, as mentioned before, has been about as bad as UCLA and still sells out at a very pricey stadium.

[Ed Anger]

Jesus buys the ND tickets.

[CountDeMoney]

Other than the active students, I just don't see UCLA's or USC's alum as football crazy as other teams.  Face it, there's simply more to do in LA in late fall than there is in Blacksburg or Knoxville.

I wonder if anyone's done any stats on how many alum from those schools ever stayed in the SoCal area, or are scattered all across the country?

[stjaba]

UCLA is a huge school with an alumni base that mostly lives locally.  Their stadium isn't that large (it would be about average for an SEC team) but is located a long ways from campus.  Notre Dame hasn't been relevant since the 1990s either, and yet can charge $1740 in tickets and minimum donations and sell out every game.

There are two issues here. First, what matters is the size of the fanbase, not the alumni base. I bet you plenty of Notre Dame season ticket holders never set foot in a single class at Notre Dame. Same with USC or plenty of other schools. State schools like OSU or UF have lots of non-alumni fans too.

Second, we're talking about a Pac-12 team. College football (and the surrounding traditions) is much more ingrained in some parts of the country compared to others. Ole Miss games are going to be well attended no matter how crappy the team is because tailgating in the Grove is part of the local culture and because there's nothing else to do in Mississippi. I just don't think that's the case at schools like UCLA or Miami(Fla).

[grumbler]

There are two issues here. First, what matters is the size of the fanbase, not the alumni base. I bet you plenty of Notre Dame season ticket holders never set foot in a single class at Notre Dame. Same with USC or plenty of other schools. State schools like OSU or UF have lots of non-alumni fans too.

Alumni are the core of many fan bases.  UCLA has a lot of local alumni - I read somewhere that it has the largest local alumni base in the country.  But it still can only charge $95 for season tickets and even then doesn't fill the stadium past 60-70%.  I just find that odd.  No other big school charges so little and sells so few tickets.

Second, we're talking about a Pac-12 team. College football (and the surrounding traditions) is much more ingrained in some parts of the country compared to others. Ole Miss games are going to be well attended no matter how crappy the team is because tailgating in the Grove is part of the local culture and because there's nothing else to do in Mississippi. I just don't think that's the case at schools like UCLA or Miami(Fla).

You are describing an outcome, though, not a cause.  Plenty of schools in or near big cities do well with attendance.  The University of Washington is right in Seattle, charges twice as much for tickets, and sells more tickets.  Miami (FL) is a good comparison to UCLA, now that you mention them, though:  They charge $115 for season tickets and sell only 40-50,000 tickets, or 60-70% of their seats.

I wonder if it has to do with living off-campus.  Maybe schools like UCLA and Miami (FL) have a large off-campus student population that then never bonds with the school like a more on-campus crowd (I can't find any data on percentage of freshmen living in dorms, but I know it is high at Michigan and low at USC).

I just think it is interesting.  I'm not expecting an answer.

[CountDeMoney]

This is for grumbler.  Just because.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrYkeXNYOG8

It's funny.  Stupid funny.

[grumbler]

This is for grumbler.  Just because.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrYkeXNYOG8

It's funny.  Stupid funny.

Check your link again.