Those figures include subsidies of direct institutional support, student fees, and other revenue. All but a few schools simply run deficits in NCAA athletics. It's frequently looked on as a marketing expense. I know the BU AD said the estimated equivalent value in marketing dollars of our B12 membership was 100mm, as in we'd have to spend 100mm to get that much exposure.
SMU's quote on it from an article I link further down:
"SMU officials deny that the athletic department operates under a deficit.
Instead, they consider it a budgeted university subsidy - an investment that brings national exposure."
USA Today has a recent report out quantifying how much each school subsidized that they could get to report. (most public schools)
The equity in athletics data doesn't qualify WHERE the revenue is generated (donations, subsidies, media rights, tickets, etc) but rather just the lump sum. There was an article that had SMU at an 18mm subsidy recently.
Here is the source of that data and the most recent year reporting is from the 2011-2012 school year.
http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/
It's a good tool for estimating sport by sport and for comparing public vs private schools.
SMU was reported to run anywhere from a minimum of 10mm up to 19mm in deficits in the years leading up to this article. If we run with 18mm as a reasonable current estimate for my calculation below we can compare them to the public schools.
http://www.smudailycampus.com/athletics ... Zpr-KKG2Sp
Cross referencing the USA Today subsidy amount, the subsidy value for SMU in that article, and the equity in athletics data for overall revenue and expenditures on football alone you get the following:
SMU- 42.6mm budget, 18mm subsidy, 24.6mm other revenue, 13.16mm football related expenditure.
For comparison...
UH- 32.3mm budget, 20.14mm subsidy, 12.1mm other revenue, 8.25mm football related expenditure
TCU (still with MWC payout)- 68mm budget, 25.9mm on football. No idea on exact subsidy.
BU- (with B12 19mm payout)- 67.83mm budget, 17mm on football. No ballpark for subsidies that I have found.
Tech- 5.7mm subsidy out of a 59.5mm budget. 16.2mm football expense.
A&M- 79mm budget, 9k subsidy, 17.9mm football expenditure
Texas- 163mm revenue, zero subsidy, 25.8mm football expenses.
Other AAC teams-
USF- 16mm subsidy, 27mm outside of that, 12.6mm on football
UCF- 21mm subsidy, 15.7mm outside, 13.6mm on football
Cincinnati- 14.7mm subsidy, 24mm outside of that, 12.59 on football.
ECU- 13mm subsidy, 20.5mm outside of that, 9.2mm on football
Temple- USA Today didn't have their data but an article had them at about a 75% subsidy- estimated by me using the EADA data at 29mm and therefore only 9mm of their budget is not subsidized. 16.9mm on football.
Memphis- 15.2mm subsidy, 19.9mm otherwise, 12.9mm on football.
Tulane- No idea on subsidy other than it's greater than 7mm, 8.9mm on football, 27.9mm overall.
One soon to depart AAC member- Louisville:
87.84mm total, 10mm subsidy, 18.7mm football expense, 15.49 MBB expense. The unique thing about UL is their relationship with their arena that the city paid for. It gives them luxury seating options that rake in high dollars that schools like KU, UK, Duke, and UNC simply don't match. This allows them to rake in 42mm in MBB revenue which is why they can rake in so much money. Football does well (23.7mm rev) but many schools do that well with similar premium seating. It's their ability to monetize their hoops program so much better than the rest that sets UL's finances apart.
SMU should be able to raise more money from gameday activities with the luxury seating additions being constructed now and from the moody renovation when complete and paid off. Compared to it's league mates SMU is financially as strong or stronger with a donor base that is very strong for it's size.
