Forbes Most Valuable College BB Programs -2015

[Masterofreality]

Xavier checks in again at 18, despite a dip in value because of all the expenses related to changing leagues. (Thanks Piker a10 for living off the money we earned for you). Forbes says that it will all be worth it in the long run, however. (Like how about this year?)

What is funny is that vd "just missed" the list. Seems like they "just miss" an awful lot.

18. Xavier Musketeers
Team value: $11.2 million
One-year change: -16%
Revenue: $12 million
Profit: $6.3 million
Conference: Big East
Head coach: Chris Mack

This year's dip in value is associated with a nearly 20% increase in spending, but the costs are expected to pay off down the line. There were upfront expenses involved in a move from the A-10 to the Big East, while other investments were made in coaching compensation - Mack received a two-year extension in May - and improving the gameday experience for hometown fans.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2015/03/16/college-basketballs-most-valuable-teams-louisville-on-top-kansas-close-behind/?utm_campaign=Forbes&utm_source=TWITTER&utm_medium=social&utm_channel=Business&linkId=12922797

[OTRMUSKIE]

Amazes me how UK isn't always number one every year. I guess when you pay your coach 30 mill year it takes a huge chunk out of the budget.

[paulxu]

1 - XU and Marquette only non-football schools
2 - Dash will have to change his signature line
3 - Alabama? Would never have guessed. They should have plenty of $ to pay for Grant's replacement.

[xudash]

1 - XU and Marquette only non-football schools
2 - Dash will have to change his signature line
3 - Alabama? Would never have guessed. They should have plenty of $ to pay for Grant's replacement.

Ha! You saved me a post stating that " I will have to change my signature line."

[GoMuskies]

Amazes me how UK isn't always number one every year.

Louisville's accounting is just more creative.

[sirthought]

Amazes me how UK isn't always number one every year. I guess when you pay your coach 30 mill year it takes a huge chunk out of the budget.

You are probably correct about the coaching costing so much, as well as flights, staff, etc.
Not 100% sure on this, but I think the way Rupp is organized, the school doesn't reap in the dollars some programs do.
They are wanting to completely rework Rupp and the region around it. Been talking about that for ages.

[OTRMUSKIE]

Are they working on a new arena for UK? Seems that school could sell out the super dome every game.

[xudash]

Louisville's accounting is just more creative.

UL's new arena is set up as a Cintas Center on steroids: it's all about modern design with suites and premium seat packages, etc. Rupp, as we all know, is very much a 70's kind of thing. A lot of seats, but few amenities.

[Masterofreality]

Now this is funny.

1673

[LA Muskie]

John Oliver had a pretty funny take on college sports last night. Remember that profits are simply revenues less expenses, and for those who don't want to show a profit (and yes there are some who don't want to) it's pretty easy to spend yourself out of profitability.

[xudash]

John Oliver had a pretty funny take on college sports last night. Remember that profits are simply revenues less expenses, and for those who don't want to show a profit (and yes there are some who don't want to) it's pretty easy to spend yourself out of profitability.

Technically true, but that should NEVER be the objective. Internally generated cash flow is king, and it's a precious, finite resource. Expenditures of any kind should be absolutely justified based on achieving program objectives.

[LA Muskie]

Technically true, but that should NEVER be the objective. Internally generated cash flow is king, and it's a precious, finite resource. Expenditures of any kind should be absolutely justified based on achieving program objectives.
I think the point was that "profitability" can be manipulated to suit the institution's overall objectives. Like statistics, things rather easily can be manipulated. Especially when you are looking at the profit/loss of an unincorporated "division" of a larger entity. And since college basketball programs are not separate for-profit corporations, they do not need to show profits unless their institution wants them to. And sometimes the institution doesn't want them to appear profitable -- particularly since those same institutions are typically asking for donations.

[xudash]

I think the point was that "profitability" can be manipulated to suit the institution's overall objectives. Like statistics, things rather easily can be manipulated. Especially when you are looking at the profit/loss of an unincorporated "division" of a larger entity. And since college basketball programs are not separate for-profit corporations, they do not need to show profits unless their institution wants them to. And sometimes the institution doesn't want them to appear profitable -- particularly since those same institutions are typically asking for donations.

I get all that. I got your original point. My comments were simply focused on obvious business decisions.

What I don't know is whether or not the "books" of an athletic department are typically audited. I would assume yes in certain cases, especially if bank financing is used for CAPEX, and other "vested" third parties have a direct concern about financial performance as well. At least accounting creativity would seem less available where institutions fall under financial audit requirements.

Perhaps the more successful programs throwback "management fees" to their institutions to fund some of the academic side, protecting what would have been profits by subsidizing other operating losses.