Connecticut Cancels Football for the 2020 Season

Earlier today the University of Connecticut canceled their football season for 2020 due to COVID-19.  Here is a look at the difference (Change) in Total Football Operating Revenues and Total Football Operating Expenses from fiscal years 2005 to 2019.  What is unknown is the how much UCONN can avoid operating expenses for cancelling football and how much UCONN retains from revenues from cancelling football.

Wisconsin Athletic Endowment

The Wisconsin State Journal reports that the University of Wisconsin's athletic department might generate $100 million less in revenues due to COVID-19.  Additionally, the article notes that the athletic department is also reducing costs as well.  Finally, the article states that between the athletic endowment and reserves for athletic capital expenditures, Wisconsin has $190 million in reserves.  That got me curious about the state of Wisconsin's athletic department's athletic endowment.

FBS athletic department are required to submit athletic department financial information to the NCAA using the Membership Financial Reporting System. Since FY2010, FBS athletic departments are required (NCAA bylaw 3.2.4.16(d)) to submit the fiscal year end value of athletic endowments (although this information is missing in the FY2013 and FY2014 MFRS reports for Wisconsin).

So, let's take a look at the athletic endowment for Wisconsin's athletic department.  As you can see below, Wisconsin's athletic endowment has been increasing over the last five fiscal years, with a growth rate of 108.6% and a compound annual growth rate of 15.8%.

With the expected drop in athletic department generated revenues (as well as the ability of Wisconsin's athletic department to reduces costs), the use of athletic department endowments to cushion the expected deficits seems like a reasonable use for these funds.

Rutgers Athletic Department Financial Information

Rutgers faculty union is suing the University for allegedly failing to provide athletic department financial records.  According to the lawsuit, Rutgers has had an increase in debt by over $75 million from last year.

The records the union are suing for are NOT the athletic department financial information provided below.  Rather, I wanted to show some general financial information about the athletic department at Rutgers.  Here is a snapshot of Rutgers athletic department financial information* since the 2004/2005 academic year. 

The first thing to notice is that Rutgers athletic department breaks even most of the fifteen seasons during this time period - exactly.  

While statistically, we know that this is nearly impossible, something must be going on to achieve this results, and there is - specifically that Rutgers subsidizes their athletic department a lot.

These subsidies come from three sources:  student fees, direct government funds and direct institutional support.  Here is a graph of the three sources of subsidies since the 2004/05 season.  Student fees (in nominal of thousands of dollars) has been steadily increasing, and direct institutional support typically an even larger part of the subsidy received from the athletic department, with direct government support typically a small part of the overall subsidy.

So, what would Rutgers look like without the subsidies?  Below is the total operating revenue (without the subsidies), total operating expenses and the deficit without those subsidies.

*The data comes from the NCAA Membership Financial Reporting System reports that Rutgers provides to the NCAA and were acquired from Freedom of Information Requests.

NCAA Universities Eliminating Programs Similarities

Over the last month, Akron eliminated three programs, Bowling Green State eliminated baseball, Central Michigan eliminated men's track (analysis coming soon), Cincinnati eliminates men's soccer, East Carolina eliminates both men's and women's swimming & diving and men's and women's tennis (analysis coming soon), Florida International University eliminates men's indoor track and Old Dominion eliminates wrestling.

In most cases, the university has stated they will honor existing athletic scholarships (probably out of goodwill to the students but also probably as a means to try to retain most of those students for the upcoming academic year - and the tuition revenue that is generated as well).

One similarity between these programs is the size of the sum of Direct State Support, Student Fees and Direct Institutional Support.  Here are the most recent financial numbers for the athletic department as a whole.

University	FY	State Support	Student Fees	Direct Institutional Support	Total
Akron	2019	$0	$0	$26,011,378	$26,011,378
Bowling Green	2019	$0	$12,935,182	$2,690,000	$15,625,182
Central Michigan	2019	$0	$0	$25,210,154	$25,210,154
Cincinnati	2019	$0	$0	$27,261,434	$27,261,434
East Carolina	2019	$1,218,612	$15,277,318	$11,949,246	$28,445,176
Florida International	2019	$53,412	$22,366,985	$5,317,342	$27,737,739
Old Dominion	2019	$0	$28,784,075	$0	$28,784,075

As you can see these athletic departments receive over $25.5 million in State/Student/Institutional subsidies.  If these subsidies are going away, then this might be a reason for athletic programs to be eliminated.

Florida International University Eliminates Mens Indoor Track

Earlier this month, it was reported that Florida International University eliminated the men's indoor track athletic program.  I have recently looked at Old Dominion (wrestling), Bowling Green State (baseball), Cincinnati (men's soccer), and Akron (men's cross country, men's golf and women's tennis).  Now I provide a brief look at the Panthers elimination of men's indoor track.

Note:  I am not including tuition revenue of the student-athletes as revenue to the athletic department, as I contend that tuition revenue is revenue generated by the academic units, not the athletic unit.  As you may guess, economists are not unified on this.  Go figure!!

Likewise I am not adjusting for internal transfers from the university in the form of subsidies for the athletic department as well.  For Florida International University, over 60% of the total operating revenue for the athletic department comes from student fees.  Additionally for the last three fiscal years, Direct Institutional Support accounts for on average 10% of the athletic departments total operating revenues.

My takeaway:  Eliminating this program reduces the athletic department's deficit, but don't get the Panthers to the Title IX "prong 1" test.  My guess is the university is reducing its direct institutional support for the athletic program and as such these three programs were eliminated.

One additional note.  Men's Indoor Track is combined with Men's Outdoor Track and Men's Cross Country, thus the numbers below reflect the combination of those three programs.  Additionally, for those that would adjust for tuition revenue, it is not appropriate in this case, the members of the Men's Indoor Track program are the same as the members for the Men's Outdoor Track program, so there is no tuition revenue lost.  (Actually 62 of the 63 participants in Men's Indoor Track program over the last three years were also members of the Men's Outdoor Track program).

Before I get to the individual numbers, one thing I want to point out is that for Florida International University, the majority of Athletic Department Total Operating Revenues comes from Student Fees and Direct Institutional Support.  Here are the numbers for fiscal years (FY) 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19.

FY	Direct State	Student Fees	Direct Institutional Support	Total Op. Revenue
2017	$68,858	$21,096,485	$2,451,524	$33,389,929
2018	$67,425	$21,584,797	$3,198,940	$34,893,144
2019	$53,412	$22,366,985	$5,317,342	$37,018,133

Turning now to the reported finances for the Men's Indoor Track Progam, we see the program generating very little operating revenue.  Note for 2017, 63% of the total operating revenue for both men's track and men's cross country programs was from student fees and over 90% of the total operating revenue for both men's track and men's cross country programs was from Direct Institutional Support.

FIU	FY	Total Op.	Total Op.	Surplus/	Scholarship	Surplus/Deficit
		Revenue	Expenses	Deficit	Expenses	w/o StudentAid
M-IndoorTrack	2017	$352,285	$399,248	-$46,963	$123,825	$76,862
M-IndoorTrack	2018	$4,523	$357,584	-$353,061	$80,565	-$272,496
M-IndoorTrack	2019	$17,865	$251,451	-$233,586	$73,730	-$159,856

In fiscal year 2017 (ignoring tuition revenue and university transfers to the men's indoor/outdoor and men's cross country program), the combined three programs had a surplus.  This is primarily due to the $117K of NCAA funds distributed to the men's indoor/outdoor and men's cross country program.

Using the EADA data, I looked up for each fiscal year the following:
Full-time Equivalent Male Counts and Female Counts; and Male student aid and Female Student Aid.

I calculate the following (in terms of percentages):

Name	FY	Male%	Female%	Male-Aid%	Female-Aid%	Difference
FIU	2017	43.64%	56.36%	50.89%	49.11%	7.25%
FIU	2018	43.51%	56.49%	53.80%	46.20%	10.29%
FIU	2019	43.10%	56.90%	58.45%	41.55%	15.35%

As you can see, FIU provides (in percentage terms) between 7% to 15% more student athletic aid to male student-athletes than is representative of the male full time equivalent of the student population.

Akron eliminates three athletic programs

Last week the University of Akron eliminated men's cross country, men's golf and women's tennis.  Recently, I have looked at the financial impact of eliminating athletic programs at Old Dominion, Bowling Green and Cincinnati.  Now I turn to Akron.

Note:  I am not including tuition revenue of the student-athletes as revenue to these three programs, as I contend that tuition revenue is revenue generated by the academic units, not the athletic unit.  As you may guess, economists are not unified on this.  Go figure!!

My takeaway:  Eliminating these three programs reduce the athletic department's deficit, but don't get the Zips to the Title IX prong 1 test.  My guess is the university is reducing its direct institutional support for the athletic program and as such these three programs were eliminated.

Before I get to the individual numbers, one thing I want to point out is that for Akron, the majority of Athletic Department Total Operating Revenues comes from Direct Institutional Support.  Here are the numbers for fiscal years (FY) 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19.

Akron	FY	Direct Institutional Support	Total Op. Revenue	Percentage
	2017	$24,641,163	$31,571,461	78.05%
	2018	$24,289,339	$30,412,150	79.87%
	2019	$26,011,378	$37,194,485	69.93%

Now turning to the three athletic programs, we notice all three generate very little operating revenues.

Akron	FY	Total Op.	Total Op.	Surplus/	Scholarship	Surplus/Deficit
		Revenue	Expenses	Deficit	Expenses	w/o StudentAid
W-Tennis	2017	$21,438	$493,208	-$471,770	$287,894	-$183,876
W-Tennis	2018	$26,989	$490,963	-$463,974	$270,897	-$193,077
W-Tennis	2019	$52,425	$564,439	-$512,014	$287,768	-$224,246
M-Golf	2017	$80,423	$391,789	-$311,366	$139,691	-$171,675
M-Golf	2018	$140,705	$453,628	-$312,923	$136,627	-$176,296
M-Golf	2019	$78,674	$400,061	-$321,387	$143,572	-$177,815
M-CrossCountry	2017	$44,328	$322,908	-$278,579	$116,623	-$161,956
M-CrossCountry	2018	$37,251	$296,164	-$258,912	$112,597	-$146,316
M-CrossCountry	2019	$29,952	$309,625	-$279,673	$111,741	-$167,932

Using the EADA data, I looked up for each fiscal year the following:
Full-time Equivalent Male Counts and Female Counts; and Male student aid and Female Student Aid.

I calculate the following (in terms of percentages):

Name	FY	Male%	Female%	Male-Aid%	Female-Aid%	Difference
Akron	2017	55.08%	44.92%	56.94%	43.06%	1.85%
Akron	2018	54.42%	45.58%	58.47%	41.53%	4.05%
Akron	2019	54.28%	45.72%	58.49%	41.51%	4.20%

Men's athletic student aid was about 58.5% of total athletic student aid for the 2018/19 fiscal year, with men's full time equivalent enrollment about 52.3% of the full time student body enrollment.  Eliminating the scholarship aid for Men's Golf and Men's Cross Country is almost the same as scholarship aid to the Women's Tennis program results in not much gain in the Title IX "prong 1" test for compliance.

Additionally, reducing Men's Cross Country is not eliminating student tuition, since 14 of the 15 Men's cross country participants also participate in Men's Track and Field.

Cincinnati Eliminates Mens Soccer

Last month, ESPN reported that the University of Cincinnati announced that it was eliminating the men's soccer athletic program.  Recently, I analyzed Old Dominion's decision to eliminate wrestling and Bowling Green State's decision to eliminate baseball.  In each case I concluded that it would reduce athletic department deficits and help the university with Title IX compliance.

Note:  I am not including tuition revenue of the student-athletes as revenue to the men's soccer program as I contend that tuition revenue is revenue generated by the academic units, not the athletic unit.  As you may guess, economists are not unified on this.  Go figure!!

My takeaway:  dropping men's soccer 1.) reduces the athletic department's fiscal year deficit, but 2.) does not meet the Title IX "prong 1" test, though it helps a little.

Here are the athletic department financial numbers for the men's soccer program for the 2016/17 to 2018/19 fiscal years.  (Athletic Department financial numbers were acquired via public records requests).

First before I present the financial results, I want to note that the majority of the men's soccer program total operating revenues come from a line called Direct Institutional Support (i.e. a subsidy or transfer from the university to the men's soccer program).  These direct subsidies represent 86.53% in 2016/17 fiscal year; 91.4% in 2017/18; and 95.26% in fiscal year 2018/19 of the men's soccer total operating revenues.  Thus I am going to present the financial results with the Direct Institutional Support first, and then without the Direct Institutional Support for comparison purposes.

First, here are the financial figures for the men's soccer program including Direct Institutional Support (DIS):

Cincinnati	FY	Total Op.	Total Op.	Surplus/	Participants
		Revenue	Expenses	Deficit
M-Soccer	2017	$154,203	$853,324	-$699,121	26
M-Soccer	2018	$137,106	$839,967	-$702,861	25
M-Soccer	2019	$181,247	$907,745	-$726,498	29

As you can see, men's soccer generates about a $700K accounting deficit just using the total operating revenue and total operating expenses that the athletic department supplies to the NCAA.

Yet, as I have mentioned before, scholarship expenses are not really an economic cost to the athletic department, and as such, I present the impact of excluding scholarship expenses from total operating expenses.

Cincinnati	FY	Surplus/	Scholarship	Surplus/Deficit
		Deficit	Expenses	w/o Student Aid
M-Soccer	2017	-$699,121	$383,811	-$315,310
M-Soccer	2018	-$702,861	$383,342	-$319,519
M-Soccer	2019	-$726,498	$404,289	-$322,209

The last column reports that excluding the scholarship expenses, the men's soccer program still results in about $320K deficit.  Yet, as I mentioned above over 85% of the total operating revenues comes from direct institutional support of the men's soccer program.  This is an internal transfer from one unit of the university to the athletic department's men's soccer program.  If we exclude Direct Institutional Support (as it is also not revenue that is generated by the athletic program), how does that change the financial impact that men's soccer has on the athletic department's finances?

Cincinnati	FY	Total Op.	DIS	Total Op.	Total Op.	Surplus/Deficit	Scholarship	Surplus/Deficit
		Revenue		Revenue	Expenses	w/o DIS	Expenses	w/o StudentAid
				w/0 DIS				w/o DIS
M-Soccer	2017	$154,203	$133,425	$20,778	$853,324	-$832,546	$383,811	-$448,735
M-Soccer	2018	$137,106	$125,311	$11,795	$839,967	-$828,172	$383,342	-$444,830
M-Soccer	2019	$181,247	$172,654	$8,593	$907,745	-$899,152	$404,289	-$494,863

Thus, excluding Direct Institutional Support as operating revenues and scholarship expenses as operating expenses, we see that over the last three fiscal years, the men's soccer program has resulted in a deficit of between $450K to $500K.

Therefore, eliminating the men's soccer program is reducing the financial impact on the athletic department.

Now turning to the issue of Title IX, here is how the athletic department has fared over the last three fiscal years.  Using the EADA data, I looked up for each fiscal year the following:
Full-time Equivalent Male Counts and Female Counts; and Male student aid and Female Student Aid.

I calculate the following (in terms of percentages):

Name	FY	Male%	Female%	Male-Aid%	Female-Aid%	Difference
Cincinnati	2017	52.78%	47.22%	60.35%	39.65%	7.58%
Cincinnati	2018	52.89%	47.11%	57.48%	42.52%	4.59%
Cincinnati	2019	52.77%	47.23%	60.14%	39.86%	7.37%

Thus male student athlete aid is between 4.6% to 7.6% higher than the proportion of full time equivalent males in the student body.  This is higher than the accepted difference from just "prong 1" of the Title IX test, but Cincinnati may be in compliance given they are reducing the men's soccer program as moving towards a proportional rate as compared to the student body male-female percentages.

Bowling Green State Eliminates Baseball

Two days ago, Bowling Green State announced that it was eliminating baseball effective immediately.  Recently, I analyzed Old Dominion's decision to eliminate wrestling and I concluded that it would reduce athletic department deficits and help the university with Title IX compliance.

Given this decision by BGSU, I thought I would do the same for the baseball program as I did for the ODU wrestling program.

Note:  I am not including tuition revenue of the student-athletes as revenue to the baseball program as I contend that tuition revenue is revenue generated by the academic units, not the athletic unit.  As you may guess, economists are not unified on this.  Go figure!!
Then again, I am not adjusting for student fees that account for nearly 50% of BGSU's athletic department total operating revenues, nor am I adjusting for the 5% to 13% Direct Institutional Support (both can be thought of as subsidies for the athletic department) that contributed to the athletic department's total operating revenues.

My takeaway:  dropping baseball 1.) reduces the athletic department's fiscal year deficit, but 2.) does not meet the Title IX "prong 1" test, though it helps a little.

Here are the athletic department financial numbers for the baseball program for the 2016/17 to 2018/19 fiscal years.  (Athletic Department financial numbers were acquired via public records requests).

Bowling Green	FY	Total Op.	Total Op.	Surplus/	Scholarship	Surplus/Deficit
State University		Revenue	Expenses	Deficit	Expenses	w/o Student Aid
Baseball	2017	$55,000	$746,007	-$691,007	$239,865	-$451,142
Baseball	2018	$74,433	$766,272	-$691,839	$266,800	-$425,039
Baseball	2019	$80,259	$775,016	-$694,757	$272,150	-$422,607

As you can see, baseball generates lower total operating revenues than total operating expenses, resulting in a fairly consistent deficit around $700K.  Even ignoring the scholarship expenses, which are not an economic cost, results in BGSU having a deficit of over $400K per fiscal year.

Using the EADA data, I looked up for each fiscal year the following:
Full-time Equivalent Male Counts and Female Counts; and Male student aid and Female Student Aid.

I calculate the following (in terms of percentages):

Name	FY	Male%	Female%	Male-Aid%	Female-Aid%	Difference
Bowling Green	2017	43.18%	56.82%	61.55%	38.45%	18.37%
Bowling Green	2018	43.21%	56.79%	64.17%	35.83%	20.96%
Bowling Green	2019	43.93%	56.07%	60.44%	39.56%	16.50%

Since the Title IX "prong 1" test states that universities are in compliance if they are +/- 1% of the ratio of full time equivalent males to male athletic aid, and BGSU is +18.37%, this means that BGSU is not meeting this test, BUT it does not mean that BGSU is not in compliance.

BGSU can make an argument that eliminating baseball is meeting Title IX "prong 2" now.

Old Dominion Recommends Dropping Wrestling

Last month, Andy Schwarz tweeted about Old Dominion University's (ODU) decision to drop wrestling.

I looked at the Old Dominion study that was used to justify the termination of ODU's wrestling program. https://t.co/UGrhTBtuy7

Even though the report asserts ODU is likely to face under-enrollment problems, there was no assessment of ...

— Andy Schwarz (@andyhre) April 5, 2020

My takeaway is the following:  dropping wrestling achieves two major goals - reducing a program making a financial loss and allows ODU to be compliant with Title IX.

ODU is adding women's volleyball in an effort to be in compliance with Title IX, because ODU does not currently meet the first "prong" of the options to be in compliance with Title IX, but by adding women's volleyball ODU is in compliance with the second "prong" of the Title IX compliance test. (The three "prongs" are laid out on page 6 of the ODU document linked here).  If ODU's athletic department cuts $250,000 in male scholarships and adds $250,000 in female scholarships then they will be in compliance using the first "prong" of the Title IX compliance test.

Since they are unable to drop a women's program due to Title IX requirements and ODU is unwilling to drop men's football, men's basketball and women's basketball, what must be done to meet the Title IX compliance test?  The three men's sports that could achieve this result are baseball, soccer and wrestling.  The author states that ODU baseball and ODU men's soccer are competitive for Conference USA conference championships, so that leaves wrestling - which the document states is not competitive for Conference USA conference championships.

So, is this accurate?  From the numbers I have, it seems to be.
Dropping wrestling:
1.) drops a program that is incurring a financial deficit to the athletic department.

Here are the wrestling programs total operating revenues, total operating expenses and surplus (+) or deficit (-) for fiscal years 2017, 2018 and 2019 that ODU provides to the NCAA.
 

FY	Total Op. Rev.	Total Op. Exp	Surplus/Deficit
2017	$53,148	$962,047	-$908,899
2018	$53,647	$941,218	-$887,571
2019	$113,546	$1,021,456	-$907,910

You will notice the wrestling program results in a deficit each of the last three fiscal years.  Yet, Andy raises a great point, regarding if scholarships (which are an accounting cost, but not an economic cost) are taken into account. 

Dropping wrestling:
2.) helps the athletic department reach "prong" 1 of the Title IX requirements (along with the addition of adding the women's volleyball program). 

FY	Student Aid
2017	$332,369
2018	$338,629
2019	$356,140

Since I have the student aid data for the ODU wrestling program during this time period, I subtracted out the scholarship costs to see if this would turn the deficit above into a surplus.  It does not.  I have also added the number of wrestling participants and the number of scholarships for the wrestling program over those three fiscal years as well.

FY	Surplus/Deficit w/o Student Aid	Partici- pants	Scholarships
2017	-$576,530	35	11.04
2018	-$548,942	36	10.28
2019	-$551,770	35	10.41

Indiana University Athletic Department Finances

In a recent article in the Indy Star, there is a question regarding Indiana University's recent release of a $13 million athletic department surplus (last line in the Table below) from IU's MFRS reports.

A classic example of "everybody's broke": https://t.co/VnVXMaPSRq

"The vast majority of that [surplus]... gets eaten up in our expenditures on capital projects. In essence, there is no surplus. We’re pretty much spending all the revenue and the resources we accumulate."

— Andy Schwarz (@andyhre) January 25, 2020

Here is a longer view of Indiana University's athletic department's total revenue, total expenses, the surplus/deficit and debt service.

AY	FY		Total Revenue		Total Exp.		Surplus/Deficit		Ath. Debt Service
2004	2005		$37,968,912		$38,805,232		-$836,320		$0
2005	2006		$41,508,845		$41,434,508		$74,337		$0
2006	2007		$46,425,225		$43,212,993		$3,212,232		$7,290,541
2007	2008		$57,155,333		$50,920,826		$6,234,507		$771,000
2008	2009		$61,136,237		$55,652,636		$5,483,601		$3,316,000
2009	2010		$69,287,811		$65,796,415		$3,491,396		$3,321,000
2010	2011		$71,017,355		$69,314,511		$1,702,844		$3,325,000
2011	2012		$72,973,954		$69,915,060		$3,058,894		$3,841,000
2012	2013		$76,660,265		$72,597,053		$4,063,212		$4,424,805
2013	2014		$84,668,779		$80,386,732		$4,282,047		$4,428,448
2014	2015		$88,362,421		$88,330,530		$31,891		$4,651,886
2015	2016		$95,216,762		$94,190,256		$1,026,506		$6,007,186
2016	2017		$106,139,192		$106,131,819		$7,373		$6,863,227
2017	2018		$122,933,136		$116,277,652		$6,655,484		$9,157,519
2018	2019		$127,832,628		$114,822,135		$13,010,493		$9,230,540

For those who prefer a visual of this data, see below.

NCAA FBS Freedom of Information (Public or Open) Records Requests

For those of you who are interested in making Freedom of Information (Public or Open) Records Requests, here is a list of Football Bowl Subdivision universities (by state) and a internet link as to how to proceed to make the request.  I am sure over time some of these links will change, so if you find a broken link, just let me know.

Alabama (state law only applicable to Alabama "citizens")
Auburn University
University of Alabama
University of Alabama-Birmingham
University of South Alabama
Troy University

Arkansas (state law only applicable to Arkansas "citizens")
Arkansas State University
University of Arkansas

Arizona
Arizona State University
University of Arizona

California
California State University - Fresno State
San Diego State University
San Jose State University
Stanford University - PRIVATE UNIVERSITY (not subject to public records requests)
University of California - Berkeley
University of California - Los Angeles
University of Southern California - PRIVATE UNIVERSITY (not subject to public records requests)

Colorado
Air Force Academy - CURRENTLY NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS
Colorado State University
University of Colorado

Connecticut
University of Connecticut

Florida
Florida Atlantic University
Florida International University
Florida State University
University of Central Florida
University of Florida
University of South Florida
University of Miami - PRIVATE UNIVERSITY (not subject to public records requests)

Georgia
Georgia Tech University
Georgia State University
Georgia Southern University
University of Georgia

Hawai'i
University of Hawai'i at Manoa

Iowa
Iowa State University
University of Iowa

Idaho
Boise State University
University of Idaho

Illinois
Northern Illinois University
Northwestern University - PRIVATE UNIVERSITY (not subject to public records requests)
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Indiana
Ball State University
Indiana University
Purdue University
University of Notre Dame - PRIVATE UNIVERSITY (not subject to public records requests)

Kansas
Kansas State University
University of Kansas

Kentucky
University of Kentucky
Western Kentucky University
University of Louisville

Louisiana
Louisiana Tech
Louisiana State University
Louisiana (Lafayette)
Louisiana-Monroe

Massachusetts
Boston College - PRIVATE UNIVERSITY (not subject to public records requests)
University of Massachusetts

Maryland
Naval Academy  - CURRENTLY NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS
University of Maryland

Michigan
Central Michigan University
Eastern Michigan University
Michigan State University
University of Michigan
Western Michigan University

Minnesota
University of Minnesota

Missouri
University of Missouri-Columbus

Mississippi
Mississippi State University
Southern Mississippi University
University of Mississippi

North Carolina
Appalachian State University
North Carolina State University
University of North Carolina-Charlotte
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill

Nebraska
University of Nebraska-Lincoln

New Jersey
Rutgers University

New Mexico
New Mexico State University
University of New Mexico

Nevada
University of Nevada-Reno
University of Nevada-Las Vegas

New York
Army West Point - CURRENTLY NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS
Syracuse University - PRIVATE UNIVERSITY (not subject to public records requests)
University of Buffalo

Ohio
Bowling Green State University
Kent State University
Ohio State University
Ohio University
University of Akron
University of Cincinnati
University of Toledo

Oklahoma
Oklahoma State University
University of Oklahoma
University of Tulsa - PRIVATE UNIVERSITY (not subject to public records requests)

Oregon
Oregon State University
University of Oregon

Pennsylvania (state law makes public universities exempt from public record requests)
Pennsylvania State University
Temple University
University of Pittsburgh

South Carolina (state law only applicable to South Carolina "citizens")
Clemson University
Coastal Carolina University
University of South Carolina

Tennessee (state law only applicable to Tennessee "citizens")
Middle Tennessee State University
University of Memphis
University of Tennessee-Knoxville

Texas
Baylor University - PRIVATE UNIVERSITY (not subject to public records requests)
Rice University - PRIVATE UNIVERSITY (not subject to public records requests)
Southern Methodist University - PRIVATE UNIVERSITY (not subject to public records requests)
Texas A&M
Texas Christian University - PRIVATE UNIVERSITY (not subject to public records requests)
Texas State University
Texas Tech University
University of Texas-Austin
University of Texas-El Paso
University of Texas-San Antonio 
University of Houston
University of North Texas

Utah
Brigham Young University - PRIVATE UNIVERSITY (not subject to public records requests)
University of Utah
Utah State University

Virginia (state law only applicable to Virginia "citizens")
Liberty University - PRIVATE UNIVERSITY (not subject to public records requests)
Virginia Tech University
University of Virginia

Washington
University of Washington - Seattle Campus
Washington State University

West Virginia
Marshall University
West Virginia University

Wisconsin
University of Wisconsin - Madison

Wyoming
University of Wyoming

Does Football Help Bowling Green's Athletic Department Financially?

When Bowling Green State University announced that head football coach Mike Jinks was being relieved of his coaching duties, Director of Athletics Bob Moosbrugger stated that, "[w]e need football to be successful to help our entire athletics department and University."

So what is the financial impact of the Bowling Green football program on the athletics department?  Using data from the Membership Financial Reporting System that was posted by The Chronicle of Higher Education and from additional data that I have collected, I looked at the football programs revenues, expenses, and excess/deficiencies, the athletic department's excess/deficiencies, and finally the student fees distributed to the athletic department for the academic years 2012 to 2016.  The table below reports the financial data.  Financial data is here. (Note:  FY2013 = 2012 academic year)

		Football		Football		Football		Athletic Dept.		Athletic Dept.
Season		Revenue		Expenses		Revenue-Expenses		Student Fees		Revenue-Expenses
2012		$3,801,729		$5,732,183		-$1,930,454		$12,408,393		-----
2013		$3,321,370		$5,894,344		-$2,572,974		$12,718,603		$162,699
2014		$2,718,523		$5,681,208		-$2,962,685		$12,600,000		$1,896
2015		$3,925,810		$6,687,220		-$2,761,410		$12,528,362		-$883,526
2016		$2,689,908		$6,348,904		-$3,658,996		$12,653,646		$1,549,720

As you can see, football is not a financial driver of the athletic department as the football program has a deficiency for each of the last five seasons that data is available.  In terms of overall athletic department excess or deficiencies, the Bowling Green athletic department looks like it aims to break even.  Finally, the biggest financial driver of the athletic department are student fees, which are over $12 million each year.