JonDMiller
Publisher/Founder
USA Today released their annual college athletic department database info on Tuesday for the year 2012 and it was full of interesting information, as always.
Iowa ranked 15th in the nation in revenues at $97.9 million dollars. That was good for 5th in the Big Ten behind Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Wisconsin. Michigan State was 17th, Minnesota 23rd and Nebraska 26th, Illinois was 29th, Indiana 31st and Purdue 35th.
Iowa is also 9th in the ranking of fewest subsidy dollars taken in by the athletic department at just under $600,000, although I am not certain what that money is as Iowa is steadfast in their claim that the athletic department is 100% fully funded by private funds (meaning no state support). Iowa State is 12th in that department, just behind Iowa, at $1.7 million.
Iowa’s expenses for 2012 showed at $104.6 million, so they operated in the red for 2012. My guess is this is due to the football practice/office facility project. Iowa athletic director Gary Barta was in Des Moines last month and said that project is just $5 million away from being fully funded. In recent years, Iowa has been in the black when this report has come out.
Future Big Ten member Rutgers was #2 in subsidy monies taken in at $27.9 million, which is rather alarming. Alabama generated more than $124 million yet took in over $5 million in subsidies.
When you look at profits, Texas made over $25 million, Michigan nearly $35 million and Texas A&M nearly $40 million. For the Aggies, that was before becoming a part of the SEC and before the Johnny Football craze. But why did the Aggies take in $5 million in subsidies?
The database does not specify what those subsidies were for, but in the case of Rutgers, they are bleeding fairly profusely.
Iowa ranked 15th in the nation in revenues at $97.9 million dollars. That was good for 5th in the Big Ten behind Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Wisconsin. Michigan State was 17th, Minnesota 23rd and Nebraska 26th, Illinois was 29th, Indiana 31st and Purdue 35th.
Iowa is also 9th in the ranking of fewest subsidy dollars taken in by the athletic department at just under $600,000, although I am not certain what that money is as Iowa is steadfast in their claim that the athletic department is 100% fully funded by private funds (meaning no state support). Iowa State is 12th in that department, just behind Iowa, at $1.7 million.
Iowa’s expenses for 2012 showed at $104.6 million, so they operated in the red for 2012. My guess is this is due to the football practice/office facility project. Iowa athletic director Gary Barta was in Des Moines last month and said that project is just $5 million away from being fully funded. In recent years, Iowa has been in the black when this report has come out.
Future Big Ten member Rutgers was #2 in subsidy monies taken in at $27.9 million, which is rather alarming. Alabama generated more than $124 million yet took in over $5 million in subsidies.
When you look at profits, Texas made over $25 million, Michigan nearly $35 million and Texas A&M nearly $40 million. For the Aggies, that was before becoming a part of the SEC and before the Johnny Football craze. But why did the Aggies take in $5 million in subsidies?
The database does not specify what those subsidies were for, but in the case of Rutgers, they are bleeding fairly profusely.
