Jay Jacobs Gus Malzahn.JPG

Auburn athletic director Jay Jacobs, right, has to deal with a big deficit. (Julie Bennett/jbennett@al.com)

A glimpse into the finances of Alabama and Auburn shows two very different stories.

Alabama, owner of one of the most lucrative football programs in the country, posted a $33 million surplus in its 2013-14 financial report to the NCAA. Auburn, on the other hand, had a deficit of $13.7 million.

How can two athletic departments with prestigious SEC football programs, in one of the most football-crazy states in the country, have such different financial outlooks?

In the simplest sense, Auburn spent more but made far less than Alabama. The Auburn athletic department spent more than $7 million more than Alabama did during the 2013-14 fiscal year, but generated approximately $26 million less in revenue. Auburn saw a whopping 21.8 percent increase in spending from 2012-13 to 2013-14 ($104.5 to $127.3 million), attributed in part to rising football coaching salaries, travel costs and facilities maintenance.

Football is what drives the bus for most schools and helps to pay off the costs for non-revenue sports. Looking at the revenues of the Alabama and Auburn football programs says it all. Alabama football had a $53.26 million surplus, while Auburn finished with $33.2 million. Auburn didn't bank enough money off its football program to cover the costs of everything else.

School Revenue Expenses Surplus/Deficit Alabama 153,234,273 120,184,128 33,050,145 Auburn 113,716,004 127,340,380 ($13,624,376)

Here are three explanations for the financial delta between the two schools:

1) Stability

Both schools have won a football national championship in the last five years, but Auburn has gone through a coaching change and Alabama hasn't. Same thing goes for basketball where Auburn made a change last year, while Anthony Grant has been in Tuscaloosa since 2009.

Auburn is on the hook for buyouts for former football coach Gene Chizik and basketball coach Tony Barbee, among others -- adding an additional $4,846,662 in severance payments. Alabama, meanwhile, only paid $272,140 in severance payments in 2013-14.

The stability of Alabama's two revenue sports has helped it avoid costly buyouts and build up its financial coffers.

2) Lucrative licensing/royalties

Alabama is significantly outperforming Auburn in revenue from its broadcast rights, royalties and licensing. Alabama generated $29.1 million from those areas compared to $11.6 million for Auburn. This can be tied to Alabama being a more national brand and being able to command more from its partnerships. Within royalties and licensing, Alabama was the Collegiate Licensing Company's second-best seller for 2013-14, behind only Texas. This has been a particularly lucrative source of revenue for Alabama's athletic department since Nick Saban's arrival -- the school made $1.2 million in 2006 from royalties, licensing and advertisements compared to $15.4 million in 2013-14.

Its broadcast rights money should only increase after Alabama agreed to a new deal with Learfield Sports worth an estimated $150 to $160 million over the next 10 years. Both schools figure to benefit financially from money from the SEC Network in future years.

3) Investment/endowment

Another huge discrepancy between the two schools is in the area of endowment/investment income. Alabama netted $10.7 million in this category while Auburn brought in a mere $1.2 million. A sizable endowment is a great way to net annual returns, and bring stability in case of drops in revenue in other areas. The bigger the endowment gets, the bigger the annual returns will be each year.

Some interesting things that jump out when comparing the two:

>>Neither school made its name in basketball, but the finances of both were fascinating. Auburn had the higher revenue ($10.1 million), but lost money due to rising costs and buyouts. However, Alabama's basketball program posted a $8.2 million surplus. It will be interesting to see how this figure changes next year if Alabama has to make a coaching change.

>>Auburn's women's basketball program lost more than $2 million more than Alabama's. Women's basketball is typically one of the more expensive sports to outfit given the low return on investment, but that was especially true at Auburn. The program generated only $87,749 in revenue and led to a $4.75 million deficit. Interestingly, Auburn's equestrian team generated more revenue in 2013-14 than women's basketball.

>>Alabama football coaching salaries still top Auburn, but the Tigers are catching up. A terrific 2013 season that saw Auburn make it to the national championship game led to raises for Gus Malzahn and his staff. Alabama pays its football coaches $12,843,289 -- led by Nick Saban's massive salary -- but Auburn closed the gap to a $2 million difference. Auburn paid its football coaches $10,470,552 in 2013-14 and that number figures to go up after it hired Will Muschamp to a contract that pays him approximately $1.6 million annually.

>>Alabama generated nearly $6 million more in football ticket sales ($34.9 million compared to $28.2 million). On the flip side, Auburn football generated $10.9 million more in donations/contributions.

>>Auburn collected $4.384 million in student fees, while Alabama collected nothing. Essentially, Auburn students are directly subsidizing the athletic department. Alabama hasn't charged student fees for athletics for seven consecutive years.

>>Alabama provides nearly $6 million in direct institutional support for the athletic department -- i.e. waived out-of-state tuition fees, state funds, etc. -- while Auburn did not provide any direct support.

>>Auburn's annual athletic-related facilities debt service increased by nearly $1 million in 2014 to $10.88 million. The total athletic debt balance last year was $109.4 million.