The highest-earning FCS programs are…

[The Cats]

Did anyone else read this article in footballscoop.com?

https://footballscoop.com/news/the-highest-earning-fcs-programs-are/


Here's the list:

1. James Madison — $10.7 million
2. Montana State — $8.7 million
3. Montana — $8.6 million
4. Delaware — $8.3 million
5. Fordham — $7.6 million
6. Furman — $7.4 million
7. William & Mary — $7.1 million
8. Richmond — $7 million
9. Lafayette — $6.8 million
10. Villanova — $6.76 million
11. Colgate — $6.74 million
12. Eastern Washington — $6.73 million
13. Alabama A&M — $6.5 million
14. Bucknell — $6.2 million
15. North Dakota State — $6.048 million
16. Elon — $6.043 million
17. Lehigh — $5.97 million
18. Samford — $5.94 million
19. UC Davis — $5.75 million
20. The Citadel — $5.73 million
21. North Carolina A&T — $5.61 million
22. Holy Cross — $5.6 million
23. Wofford — $5.53 million
24. Sacramento State — $5.52 million
25. Idaho — $5.52 million

My big question is how can a school with 5 home games, and drawing an average of 4,397 per game, is the 18th highest grossing program in FCS? What say you Samford?

[DFW HOYA]

My big question is how can a school with 5 home games, and drawing an average of 4,397 per game, is the 18th highest grossing program in FCS? What say you Samford?

It's not about revenue but the budget offset to meet expenses. Since many universities run on a fund accounting model, "revenues" (either ticket sales, donations, or more likely subsidy offsets) always equal expenses.

[WestCoastAggie]

Well this article is hog wash.

[Bisonator]

It's not about revenue but the budget offset to meet expenses. Since many universities run on a fund accounting model, "revenues" (either ticket sales, donations, or more likely subsidy offsets) always equal expenses.
This. There's lots of accounting shell games with this stuff. This article or list is pretty meaningless because it's not apples to apples.

[IBleedYellow]

"article."

[frozennorth]

Does this include concessions and other gameday revenue? That would be off the books for NDSU, UND, and several others

[MR. CHICKEN]

Did anyone else read this article in footballscoop.com?

https://footballscoop.com/news/the-highest-earning-fcs-programs-are/


Here's the list:

1. James Madison — $10.7 million
2. Montana State — $8.7 million
3. Montana — $8.6 million
4. Delaware — $8.3 million
5. Fordham — $7.6 million
6. Furman — $7.4 million
7. William & Mary — $7.1 million
8. Richmond — $7 million
9. Lafayette — $6.8 million
10. Villanova — $6.76 million
11. Colgate — $6.74 million
12. Eastern Washington — $6.73 million
13. Alabama A&M — $6.5 million
14. Bucknell — $6.2 million
15. North Dakota State — $6.048 million
16. Elon — $6.043 million
17. Lehigh — $5.97 million
18. Samford — $5.94 million
19. UC Davis — $5.75 million
20. The Citadel — $5.73 million
21. North Carolina A&T — $5.61 million
22. Holy Cross — $5.6 million
23. Wofford — $5.53 million
24. Sacramento State — $5.52 million
25. Idaho — $5.52 million

My big question is how can a school with 5 home games, and drawing an average of 4,397 per game, is the 18th highest grossing program in FCS? What say you Samford?

........$270......UH TICKET....xchinscratchx....BRAWK!

[MSUBobcat]

It's not about revenue but the budget offset to meet expenses. Since many universities run on a fund accounting model, "revenues" (either ticket sales, donations, or more likely subsidy offsets) always equal expenses.

Sorry DFW, but that is not how fund accounting works. I've put together more governmental and non-profit financial statements than I can count from my days working at accounting firms that specialized in governmental audits. The difference between revenue and expense is the change in net position. Fund revenue almost never equals expense, unless there's some kind of statutory requirement in that fund, in which case you'd have a transfer in or out. Even then, transfers are considered Other Financing Sources/(Uses), not exactly revenue and expense.

That said, because different entities account for revenue sources differently, this is probably not a very good list.

[NY Crusader 2010]

I can't figure out this list. The article clearly states that the figure includes DONATIONS that go towards football ticket sales, if the school doesn't classify these donations as going to general athletic fund. So that could explain why most of the Patriot League is on the list.

But if donations are a component, why the lack of HBCU and Ivies? Is it the way they allocate or classify donations compared to others? One would think that Jackson State and the host of Harvard-Yale would by default make this list.

[Bison_137]

This whole article is a joke and the author is clueless. The numbers reported to the federal government must show revenues that at least match expenses. For virtually all FCS programs, the expenses are higher and the revenues are subsidized by the school. So what you actually are seeing is expenses - not true revenue. That is why a school like Fordham - which has high tuition and high NYC expenses - is near the top, despite drawing very few fans. Even JMU lost money according to the numbers submitted to the government.

[DFW HOYA]

I can't figure out this list. The article clearly states that the figure includes DONATIONS that go towards football ticket sales, if the school doesn't classify these donations as going to general athletic fund. So that could explain why most of the Patriot League is on the list.

But if donations are a component, why the lack of HBCU and Ivies? Is it the way they allocate or classify donations compared to others? One would think that Jackson State and the host of Harvard-Yale would by default make this list.

Fund accounting: Expenses = Revenues (sales, cash flow + subsidies + endowment or restricted assets + transfer costs)

The more you spend (and six of 7 PL schools outspend the Ivies), the more the "revenues", regardless of ticket sales.

[MSUBobcat]

Fund accounting: Expenses = Revenues (sales, cash flow + subsidies + endowment or restricted assets + transfer costs)

The more you spend (and six of 7 PL schools outspend the Ivies), the more the "revenues", regardless of ticket sales.

Again.... this is NOT fund accounting. Revenue - Expense = Fund Balance/Net Position. Revenues do NOT have to equal expenses unless statutorily required, which then requires a interfund transfer in or out. Almost no funds are statutorily prohibited from having a fund balance. Look at any government's CAFR. I'd be willing to bet each fund has fund balance, which is the accumulation of years of differences between revenue and expenses, some with increases (revenue exceeds expense) and some with decreases (expenses exceed revenue). All funds are for is to allow for the accountability to show that revenues for a specific purpose are, in fact, used for that purpose. I have no idea where you got this notion of expenses having to equal expenses in fund accounting, but you need to retake Governmental and Non-Profit Accounting.

The differences lie in what stipulations are put on a revenue source at different schools. As one example, School A may say the ad signs lining the football field goes to overall general athletics, whereas School B says that is football specific revenue and will be counted as such. This is all typically dependent on the government or non-profit entity's bylaws/statutory regulations. Because there are no universal bylaws saying how a school can treat a given revenue stream, this will never be an apples to apples comparison.

[clenz]

Again.... this is NOT fund accounting. Revenue - Expense = Fund Balance/Net Position. Revenues do NOT have to equal expenses unless statutorily required, which then requires a interfund transfer in or out. Almost no funds are statutorily prohibited from having a fund balance. Look at any government's CAFR. I'd be willing to bet each fund has fund balance, which is the accumulation of years of differences between revenue and expenses, some with increases (revenue exceeds expense) and some with decreases (expenses exceed revenue). All funds are for is to allow for the accountability to show that revenues for a specific purpose are, in fact, used for that purpose. I have no idea where you got this notion of expenses having to equal expenses in fund accounting, but you need to retake Governmental and Non-Profit Accounting.

The differences lie in what stipulations are put on a revenue source at different schools. As one example, School A may say the ad signs lining the football field goes to overall general athletics, whereas School B says that is football specific revenue and will be counted as such. This is all typically dependent on the government or non-profit entity's bylaws/statutory regulations. Because there are no universal bylaws saying how a school can treat a given revenue stream, this will never be an apples to apples comparison.
You'll find almost zero schools that don't have revenue=expense - regardless the truth.

It's all an accounting game to hide as much money from the government as possible.

[wapiti]

If Jackson State leads FCS in attendance then why are they not on this list? Does Jackson state sell tickets for only a buck or 2?

[PaladinFan]

This whole article is a joke and the author is clueless. The numbers reported to the federal government must show revenues that at least match expenses. For virtually all FCS programs, the expenses are higher and the revenues are subsidized by the school. So what you actually are seeing is expenses - not true revenue. That is why a school like Fordham - which has high tuition and high NYC expenses - is near the top, despite drawing very few fans. Even JMU lost money according to the numbers submitted to the government.

I mean, it's not really an "article." The author concedes that he does not know how these figures are calculated, but just that these are the figures. I have my own issues with basically reposting someone else data without a link to the actual source.

Without insight, it is difficult to know what goes into the figures. Furman, surprisingly, shows up high on the list, and has spent a lot of effort in their football funding in recent years.

I would expect that some it may have to do with "money games." Some of the SoCon schools, for instance, do not have the size or fanbase of some of the other programs on the list, but also are in close proximity to major SEC/ACC programs that will write a half million dollar check with comparatively little travel costs.

[SU DOG]

Hog wash is a good description of this article. I think it has more to do with what the school subsidizes to the athletic program than anything about revenue. Some schools do this by a student fee for athletics, while others actually do the same but don't dare to entitle it fees for athletics. Students would rebel in many cases, therefore it may be masked as extracurricular fees or charges, but the result is the same. I really don't think revenue is actually reflected here. I may also be totally wrong about this article, but that is what I garner. What an unfit piece of work!

[VandalBasher]

Nos. 24 and 25 is not a typo. Sacramento State and Idaho actually reported a single, solitary dollar’s difference in revenue. Sacramento State says its football program brought in $5,515,779, while Idaho reported $5,515,778.

We couldn't come up with one more buck?

The only reason we were able to even do this well was due to payouts from Penn St. and Wyoming.

[ngineer]

Yeah, this is just an accounting technique.

[walliver]

I suspect a big factor in these calculations has to due with athletic fund-raising. For private schools, money donated to athletic clubs goes directly to the schools. For many public schools, the athletic boosters are set up as a distinct entity.

The fact that so many private schools make the list, especially with Furman having more "revenue" than NDSU, suggests that a lot of "revenue" is accounted for differently. I also suspect Wofford is reporting scholarships paid for from the athletic endowment as revenue.

[PaladinFan]

I suspect a big factor in these calculations has to due with athletic fund-raising. For private schools, money donated to athletic clubs goes directly to the schools. For many public schools, the athletic boosters are set up as a distinct entity.

The fact that so many private schools make the list, especially with Furman having more "revenue" than NDSU, suggests that a lot of "revenue" is accounted for differently. I also suspect Wofford is reporting scholarships paid for from the athletic endowment as revenue.

It's possible. Furman also played two FBS programs last season, which probably was close to a million in checks.

[walliver]

It's possible. Furman also played two FBS programs last season, which probably was close to a million in checks.

I doubt Georgia State paid nearly as well as Virginia Tech. Take away the Georgia State game and Furman only moves down 2 spots.

[PaladinFan]

I doubt Georgia State paid nearly as well as Virginia Tech. Take away the Georgia State game and Furman only moves down 2 spots.

I can't remember the exact figure, but Furman took a bigger payout against GSU than I expected.

It was their opening home game, but Furman also had a big contingent of fans in Atlanta and brought a nice gate. The only home game that was better attended for Ga. State than the Furman game was their contest against Army (and even then, it was close). The Furman game outdrew everyone else on their schedule (including App State).