The Ohio State athletic department is currently riding on some pretty solid financial footing.

A report released Tuesday by USA Today that detailed total revenues and expenses from over 200 Division I programs ranked the Buckeyes fifth nationally in total revenue amongst public institutions. Private universities were not included in the release. The $145 million mark was bested only by Alabama, Michigan, Texas and Oregon.

Even more telling is the fact that when you subtract total expenses and subsidies (of which OSU received none) their overall profit in 2014 came out to over $31.3 million. Only their two opponents in the inaugural College Football Playoff, Alabama and Oregon, earned more. The Tide’s athletic department brought in $33.05 million and the Ducks were clearly in a league of their own earning a gargantuan $85.65 million. When you take out the $5.997 million in allocated funds not generated by sports-related activity, Bama’s number actually comes down to $27.05 million, making the Ohio State athletic department the second most profitable in the country on its own merit.

Within the Big Ten Conference, the Buckeyes are far and away the highest earners. Though their Maize and Blue rivals to the north generated roughly $12.67 million more in revenue (good enough for third nationally), they also incurred $28.61 million more in expenses. Their gross profit of $15.35 million was less than half of Ohio State’s previously mentioned number.

Ohio State Athletic Department Massively Profitable; Other Big Ten Schools Not So Much

The gulf between these two schools and the rest of the conference is even more stark, as the following graphic indicates.

I’ve decided to rank the 13 public institutions within the Big Ten by how much money they would be making without the existence of various forms of subsidies. Those external sources of funds originate from a variety of sources but are primarily state funds and non-athletic monetary support from within the institution. As you can see by looking at the fourth column from the left, less than half the athletic departments within the league are profitable without some form of non-athletic support. Even with subsidies, Illinois, Michigan State and Purdue remained in the red during fiscal year 2014.

Then there’s the issue with both conference newcomers from 2014, Maryland and Rutgers. The two schools took a combined $54.4 million in subsidies just to keep their athletic departments afloat. In fact, over 69% of the roughly $78.5 million in non-revenue allocated money in the conference was doled out to those two schools. Rutgers $36.34 million shortfall minus subsidies is the largest amongst teams in Power Five conferences.

It must be pointed out that there was likely quite a bit of give and take with regard to Maryland and Rutgers joining the Big Ten. The conference certainly wanted that geographical proximity to the major cities up and down the Northeast Corridor, particularly New York and Washington, D.C. On the other side of the coin, conference membership meant a huge infusion of cash from the conference’s television deal that was looked at as a means of salvaging two athletic departments hemorrhaging money.

With respect to the two schools at the top of the table, these numbers shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone with as much as a basic knowledge of college football, especially in the Big Ten. It’s that sport that drives the bulk of the revenue and profits that trickle down to non-revenue sports and both Michigan and Ohio State have always been the proverbial elephant in the room (no pun intended, Crimson Tide fans). Though the Wolverines have had their share of issues on the field in recent years, they still remain a juggernaut in paid attendance, averaging 104,909 fans in 2014.

Still, it can’t be discounted that last season marked the first time in 41 years that Ohio State eclipsed Michigan when it came to fans in the stands. In fact, Michigan had only been bested in attendance once in that time when Tennessee led the nation in 1998. The average attendance at Ohio Stadium of 106,296 led the nation last season while the Wolverines fell to third as Texas A&M took the second spot with 105,123 per game.

It’s certainly among the best of times on the field for Ohio State football, and that success has translated to the balance sheet of the athletic department as a whole. What the above graphic demonstrates, however, is that a clear gulf exists between those schools who’ve been able to successfully leverage their two revenue sports (basketball included) and those who have struggled to do so. This is a significant issue that extends beyond the Big Ten as there are clear haves and have-nots from a revenue generating standpoint in each major conference. Just look at the the conference’s Rose Bowl rival the Pac-12.

Despite over $34 million in subsidies, the bottom three public schools in the Pac-12 in terms of profitability are losing a combined $23.508 million. Oregon’s massive windfall outdoes their in-state rival by over $95 million with allocated funds and around $105.5 million in the absence of them. Both Oregon State and Washington State are clearly in Maryland/Rutgers territory, the only difference being they have 41 percent less public funds to alleviate their monetary shortfall.

Going forward, it’s pretty clear that the Ohio States and Oregons of the college sports world are in exceptional financial shape. The Rutgers and Washington States on the other hand will need to figure out ways to enhance their ability to generate revenue while keeping costs under control. It’s the only way they’ll be able to maintain their athletic departments as is without making cuts to non-revenue sports.

College sports is big business. Winning definitely helps and established tradition plays a major part in being able to create multiple revenue streams and by extension significant profits. It’s one among many reasons why the Ohio State athletic department is so awash in cash right now.

Main Photo: