Which Is More Important: Booster Contributions or NCAA and Conference Distributions?
Let’s take a look at last year’s BCS Top 25 and see which schools relied upon more, contributions or conference distributions:
| School | Contributions | NCAA/Conference Distributions | Difference | |
| 1 | Auburn | $29,731,122.00 | $19,646,038.00 | $10,085,084.00 |
| 2 | Oregon | $73,809,775.00 | $12,756,603.00 | $61,053,172.00 |
| 3 | TCU* | |||
| 4 | Stanford* | |||
| 5 | Wisconsin | $19,247,563.00 | $21,521,927.00 | ($2,274,364.00) |
| 6 | Ohio State | $27,327,347.00 | $23,943,397.00 | $3,383,950.00 |
| 7 | Oklahoma | $26,601,241.00 | $13,548,733.00 | $13,052,508.00 |
| 8 | Arkansas | $13,124,745.00 | $20,556,381.00 | ($7,431,636.00) |
| 9 | Michigan State | $21,292,589.00 | $22,578,159.00 | ($1,285,570.00) |
| 10 | Boise State | $6,553,812.00 | $6,242,864.00 | $310,948.00 |
| 11 | LSU | $38,255,521.00 | $19,883,259.00 | $18,372,262.00 |
| 12 | Missouri | $13,454,020.00 | $10,681,242.00 | $2,772,778.00 |
| 13 | Virginia Tech | $16,138,765.00 | $12,081,194.00 | $4,057,571.00 |
| 14 | Oklahoma State | $51,877,388.00 | $12,570,471.00 | $39,306,917.00 |
| 15 | Nevada | $4,686,526.00 | $2,368,894.00 | $2,317,632.00 |
| 16 | Alabama | $33,739,056.00 | $21,288,565.00 | $12,450,491.00 |
| 17 | Texas A&M | $20,512,889.00 | $11,900,472.00 | $8,612,417.00 |
| 18 | Nebraksa | $6,103,706.00 | $10,978,295.00 | ($4,874,589.00) |
| 19 | Utah | $5,750,835.00 | $4,175,348.00 | $1,575,487.00 |
| 20 | South Carolina | $23,987,283.00 | $19,549,286.00 | $4,437,997.00 |
| 21 | Mississippi State | $0.00 | $18,234,538.00 | ($18,234,538.00) |
| 22 | West Virginia | $15,729,528.00 | $10,416,908.00 | $5,312,620.00 |
| 23 | Florida State | $23,245,513.00 | $13,323,332.00 | $9,922,181.00 |
| 24 | Hawaii | $13,323,332.00 | $2,284,893.00 | $11,038,439.00 |
| 25 | UCF | $5,308,200.00 | $3,337,076.00 | $1,971,124.00 |
A couple of things to note. First, TCU and Stanford’s numbers are unavailable because they are private institutions. Second, Mississippi State shows no contributions because they chose not to take a distribution from their booster club in fiscal year 2010. Not all schools separate out NCAA and conference distributions, so they are tabulated here together.
As you can see, most of the schools on this list take in significantly more in contributions than in NCAA and conference distributions, regardless of conference affiliation.
Are boosters more important than television contracts or BCS and March Madness appearances? How does a school increase the contribution levels of its alumni to stay competitive?
No comments:
Post a Comment