Last week, The Chronicle of Higher Education released the latest gender equity data from the 2001-02 academic year, and that information shows that Virginia Tech ranks near the bottom of the Big East football schools and the ACC schools in terms of athletic revenue and expenditures.

According to the Chronicle's data, which is released annually during the summer and lags by a year, Virginia Tech's athletic revenue for the 2001-02 academic year was $26,907,104, down from $28,542,305 the year before, and basically unchanged from 1999-2000, when the athletic department made $26,235,450.

However, overall athletic revenue is up significantly from 1996-97 -- the first year for which that data is available in the Chronicle's database -- when it was just $16,239,000.

Meanwhile, athletic expenditures in 2001-02 were $25,423,220, resulting in a profit of $1,483,884, the fifth time in the last six years that the VT athletic department ran in the black. In 1997-98, the department lost just over $700,000, but overall, they have run a total of over $10 million in the black.

(Side note: one reaction to the $5.5 million surplus is to wonder why VT wasn't using it to beef up non-revenue sports, increase travel budgets, increase recruiting budgets, etc.; another reaction is to wonder if Jim Weaver knew what was coming and that VT would need money for changing conferences. He publicly stated in 1999 that the Big East would not be VT's last conference.)

So where do the Hokies fall in the Big East and ACC, in terms of overall athletic revenue and budget (expenditures)?

Obviously, when ranking VT in the Big East, the ranking is different when considering the football schools versus the basketball-only schools. And do you include Notre Dame? What about Connecticut, which only recently upgraded to 1-A football?

The answer: we'll compare VT to the other seven schools currently in the Big East football conference, and we'll include Notre Dame and Connecticut, as well. That's 10 schools, and beyond that, if you start including the basketball-only schools, you start dealing with universities that have dinky athletic budgets, and it rapidly becomes an apples-and-oranges comparison.

Among those 10 schools, the Hokies' athletic revenue of $26.9 million ranked 7th out of 10. The high was Notre Dame ($44,784,384), and the low was Temple ($19,857,332). The Hokies' athletic expenditures of $25.4 million ranked 8th among those 10 schools. The high was Notre Dame ($38,548,933) and the low was Temple ($19,857,332).

Notes:

1.) Wow, look at Notre Dame. The Irish made $32 million off of football alone, more than what half of the teams listed make overall.

2.) If the Big East maintains its BCS bid, UConn is going to be a financial powerhouse. In 2001-02, they only made $1.3 million off of football, because they were just moving to 1-A and didn't have much income. Boost that number to over $10 million, which is the norm in the Big East -- only Temple and Rutgers made less than $10 million, with $3.7 million and $4.7 million, respectively -- and UConn's overall revenue will rival that of Notre Dame. It will be a challenge, though, because UConn won't share the Big East's BCS revenue until 2015 (that is not a misprint).

3.) Miami's expenses shot from $24,859,279 in 1997-98 to just under $37 million in 2001-02. No wonder they wanted to bolt for the ACC (Tech's expenses went from $19.8 million to $25.4 million in that same time span.)

4.) Syracuse's "revenue" included almost $6 million transferred over from the school's general fund, and counted as revenue on the women's side of athletics. It's a book-cooking ploy used by private schools to make the athletic budgets balance.

5.) With the exception of Notre Dame, no Big East school listed made more in profit/loss from athletics than VT did.

When you compare VT to the other 10 schools that will be in the future ACC, you find that VT's athletic revenue ranked 9th out of the 11 future ACC schools, and their expenditures ranked 10th.

Notes:

1.) NC State's "loss" of $11 million looks bad, but I think that doesn't include their athletic fund contributions (whereas every other school's revenue does). One former employee of the Wolfpack Club told me recently that it is a private foundation affiliated only "in name" with the university. They do not report to anyone on campus, they have their own banking, board, etc. So that's probably why NCSU is only showing $19 million in revenue -- there's probably another $10 million, at least, coming from their Wolfpack Club that was not reported.

2.) FSU's middle-of-the-pack revenue ranking is a surprise, until you consider that their men's basketball revenue was "only" $5.4 million, lowest in the current ACC. All other current ACC schools made over $6 million on men's basketball, and four of them -- UNC, Duke, Maryland, and NC State -- made $9 million or more.

Looking over the financial data points out what a weak spot the men's basketball program at VT is. Of the 23 teams participating in Big East and ACC basketball, VT ranks dead-last in men's basketball revenue, by a wide margin. Here's the breakdown:

• 18 of the 23 teams in ACC and Big East hoops made over $3 million a year.
• 2 more made between $2 million and $3 million.
• Georgetown made $1.9 million, and Notre Dame made $1.8 million.
• Virginia Tech made just $1.1 million.

On the men's basketball expenditure side, only WVU spent less on men's hoops than VT did, and that was by a small margin: $21,000. The Mountaineers spent $1.621 million, and the Hokies spent $1.642 million.

After rising rapidly from $16.2 million in 1996-97 to $26.2 million in 1999-2000, VT athletic revenue has leveled out for three years now, in the $26-$28 million range. As the Hokies enter the ACC, how can they increase revenues, increase their budget, and get competitive with other schools in the ACC, not just in football, but in all other sports?

The extra revenue will come from numerous places. Here are two:

The jump from $4.6 million to $8 million would be a jump of $3.4 million, boosting VT revenue to over $30 million, if nothing else changed.

But, other things did change.

2. Increased Football Revenue. One important thing to remember is that the 2001-02 financial figures were pre-South-end-zone-expansion. During the 2001 football season, Lane Stadium only seated 53,662 fans. In 2002, stadium capacity jumped to about 65,000, an increase of about 11,300 fans per game. At $35 a ticket, that extra 11,300 fans per game equates to an extra $392,000 in ticket revenue per game -- that's $2.35 million for six home games and $2.75 million for 7 home games, assuming sellouts.

Plus, there's luxury box income -- $42,000 per box per year for 15 boxes, or $630,000 per year.

Then there are the "annual gifts" for VT's club seats -- there are 1,160 "Goal Line" seats that require a $200 annual gift, 321 "Touchdown Terrace" seats that require a $500 annual gift, and 880 "Zone Club" seats that require a $750 annual gift. If all of those sell out, that's an additional $1.05 million in revenue per season.

Add up increased ticket sales, luxury box income, and club seat income, and you get a cool $4 million to $4.4 million in extra revenue per year, depending upon whether VT plays six or seven home games.

Just counting those two sources of income -- revenue sharing and south end zone expansion income -- VT will, in the near future, be raking in $7-$8 million more per year than they did in 2001-02, which would immediately boost athletic department revenue from the $26.9 million figure reported for that year to $34 or $35 million.

This number jibes with a recent Daily Progress report I (of all places) that said that VT will have a $33.8 million athletic budget next year. That figure was an eye-opener at the time it was printed, but not now, not after looking at the numbers.

If the ACC is successful in petitioning the NCAA to allow conferences with less than 12 teams to have football championship games, then the ACC will hold such a game, starting in either 2004 or 2005, and would net each school in the conference an additional $500,000 to $1 million.

And in VT's case, there is addition by subtraction. Tech AD Jim Weaver has said that VT will spend $500k to $600k less on travel budgets in the ACC than in the Big East.

Also, basketball ticket sales will rise. The Tech ticket office has received numerous inquiries about basketball season tickets (which don't go on sale until the fall), indicating that fans are more excited about ACC membership than they were Big East membership, which didn't increase attendance.

Recent information obtained by TechSideline.com says that VT sold just over 3,300 men's basketball season tickets this past year, and that only about 5,300 total will be sold, leaving 2,000 available for new customers (the assumption is that the other 4,700 will be student tickets and complementary tickets).

An additional 2,000 tickets sold per game at just $15 a ticket, for 13 home games a year, would bring in an extra $400,000 annually in ticket sales alone.

A conference championship game, decreased travel budgets, and increased basketball season ticket sales could result in an extra $1.4 million to $2 million for Jim Weaver to spend as he sees fit.

The Hokie Club, which brought in a record $14.38 million in the fiscal year just completed on June 30th, will continue to grow, as Hokie fans raise their donation levels in an effort to compete for season tickets for both football and, yes, men's basketball.

The financial future looks bright for Tech athletics. Within a few years, the athletic budget, which was less than $20 million just six years ago, could be at $35 million and pushing for $40 million.

You can access the Chronicle's financial data one of three ways:

2.) In a web page I set up that lists all ACC and Big East teams' financial data for 2001-02, including football revenue and expenses, men's basketball revenue and expenses, and overall revenue and expenses. Click here:
http://subscription.techsideline.com/tslpass/2003/beaccoperationgexpenses20012002.htm

3.) In an MS Excel 97 spreadsheet that lists all ACC and Big East teams' financial data for 2001-02, including football revenue and expenses, men's basketball revenue and expenses, and overall revenue and expenses. Click here:
http://subscription.techsideline.com/tslpass/2003/beaccoperationgexpenses20012002.xls

TechSideline Pass Home