guess it makes sense since graduation date is May for us, and many schools especially public ones are in June since they’re on quarter system…
so the season tix/donations are all pulled forward. Kinda bs accounting cause you don’t have to account for costs/rev in future. So we are pulling forward rev from following football season, but there is never a real “cost” in this type of rev accounting since we always do it. Like we are assuredly never pulling forward the expected cost of tuition we are covering for the upcoming season lol.
2024 we had $182M in rev reported I believe Now this is saying $230M for 2025. $50M increase…
The ACCs Success Initiative which was uneven payout went into effect for this FY2025 pretty sure. So I’d assume we probably received a slightly more than avg at least for the 2024 season results at least due to tv views, even without cfp. So maybe $5-$10M more in FY25 than FY24? Obviously FY26 we are set to make substantially more for this success initiative.
Also in 25 vs 24 The House Settlement should be in effect so that’s the $20M In more costs from NIL directly paid from the school… which means we need a $20M rev to offset that. And we know we were putting some Uhealth money towards AD. So I can see this+ACC Distribution at least accounting for $25-30M of the $50M difference from 2024… so maybe we had actual real rev growth of $25M? Seems like that’d be a lot but idk. Surely season ticket sales were stronger entering 25 than entering 24, which was WAY stronger than 23…so maybe
Uhhhh...yeah...you are acting as if the primary focal point for the fiscal period is to accelerate revenue. But that's not really it.
First, universities tend to be non-profits, so they don't feel the same need to manipulate timing. And, if anything, corporations tend to DELAY revenue and accelerate costs, wherever possible and defensible (unless you are having a bad year/quarter).
Second, I'm sure UM picked the fiscal year long before "football revenue" was a big consideration, and for logical calendar purposes. When NASCAR and International Speedway Corporation were separate companies, ISC had a fiscal year that ended in November, because that's when the last races were held. So you really pick a fiscal year based on larger considerations.
As for the rest of your hypothesis on getting extra money from the Success Initiative in FY2025...
---"Schools earn extra revenue for reaching the 12-team College Football Playoff (approx. $4 million) and additional money for advancing."---We did not reach the 12-team CFP in 2024-25, nor did we advance. So, no extra money.
---"Teams that finish in the AP Top 25 or reach specific bowl games receive bonuses (approx. $1.8 million for 2024 bowl appearances)."---We finished in the Top 25, and while I don't know about specific bowl games and we were the highest-finishing ACC team that did NOT go to the CFP, so let's just say we got an extra $1.8 million.
---"Payouts are tied to "units" earned for wins in the NCAA basketball tournament."---We did not make any post-season tournament in 2024-25.
---"A new revenue stream that distributes roughly 60% of TV revenue based on a rolling five-year TV rating average, rewarding larger schools."---While Miami has always been a pretty decent TV draw, this was based on the PRIOR 5 years of ratings, which were not exactly compelling years (2019-2023 seasons).
2023 - finished 7-6, big games against aTm and F$U
2022 - finished 5-7, big games against aTm, F$U, and Clemson
2021 - finished 7-5, big games against Alabama, Michigan State, and F$U
2020 - finished 8-3 (COVID year), big games against F$U and Clemson
2019 - finished 6-7, big games against Florida and F$U
Not exactly a recipe for great TV ratings. Five games over .500 for five years.
So...I don't know...it looks like we made an extra, what, maybe $2M from the Success Initiative in FY2025.
