As college basketball season begins, I took a deep dive into the economics of the sports thanks to the recent data reveal by Extra Points.
We know that in Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana, college basketball is more than a winter pastime. It fills arenas, energizes alumni and drives business for restaurants, hotels and retailers. But behind the rivalries and buzzer-beaters, a different competition is unfolding, one measured in millions of dollars.
A November 2026 financial analysis by Extra Points, the independent college sports business publication founded by Matt Brown, shows just how uneven the economics of Division I men’s basketball have become. Based on financial reporting for the 2024–25 period, its findings describe a sport in which a small group of wealthy programs commands an outsized share of spending.
Indiana reported more than $32 million in men’s basketball expenses in the Extra Points analysis, the highest among reporting programs. Kentucky spent approximately $1.36 million on recruiting, more than 13 times the national median of roughly $102,000. By comparison, median Division I men’s basketball expenses were about $2.9 million.
These figures do not merely reflect different budgets. They illustrate different competitive realities.
Three states, many business models
Kentucky and Louisville operate nationally recognized basketball brands supported by ticket sales, donors, sponsorships and extensive fan loyalty. Indiana and Purdue benefit from deep basketball traditions and major-conference platforms. Butler competes in the basketball-centered Big East, where the sport plays an especially important institutional role.
Ohio presents a broader mix. Ohio State and Cincinnati compete in powerful conferences; Xavier belongs to the Big East; Dayton has developed a formidable basketball identity in the Atlantic 10. Miami, Ohio University, Akron, Kent State and other programs compete with substantially different resources.
For Cincinnati, the contrast is especially compelling. The Bearcats and Musketeers share a city and a celebrated rivalry, yet operate in different conference revenue environments. Both must recruit, retain players and attract supporters in a marketplace that has become more expensive almost overnight.
The disappearing middle
Extra Points found that the 25 highest-spending programs accounted for 34.6% of reported expenses despite representing only 10.5% of the schools in its comparable dataset. Across 232 programs, expenses rose $81.8 million, or 6.5%, in one year.
Among 237 reporting programs, nearly 73% spent less than $6 million, while about 22% spent at least $10 million. Only a small share occupied the space between. The numbers suggest a widening divide between financial powerhouses and everyone else.
That spending covers more than coaches and scholarships. Programs invest in travel, facilities, support staffs, sports medicine, analytics, marketing and the overall athlete experience. Recruiting and roster construction now add further pressure.
The new roster marketplace
With athletes able to benefit from name, image and likeness opportunities and participating schools permitted to share athletics revenue directly under the House v. NCAA settlement, roster economics have changed dramatically.
An October 2026 CBS Sports report, estimated that Kentucky and Louisville were among programs with basketball rosters costing at least $20 million for the 2026–27 season. Indiana was placed just below that level. Cincinnati was estimated at $15.1 million to $17.5 million, with Ohio State and Xavier in a lower estimated range.
Those roster figures are estimates, not audited operating expenses, and should not be added to the historical figures in the Extra Points report. Still, they convey the scale of competition for talent.
Basketball as a revenue engine
Separate FY2025 research from College Sports Finance reported basketball revenue of approximately $38.3 million at Kentucky, $37.1 million at Louisville and $26.3 million at Ohio State. Reported basketball expenses were approximately $20.8 million, $19.9 million and $14.6 million, respectively. These figures come from a different dataset and are not directly interchangeable with Extra Points’ methodology.
For major programs, basketball is a commercial platform as well as a sport. Ticket sales, media exposure, sponsorships and philanthropy can strengthen an athletic department and elevate the university’s profile. Game days also support surrounding businesses, although those community benefits are separate from university athletics revenue.
Can spending buy March Madness?
Not always. Extra Points found that seven of the 25 highest-spending programs missed the 2025 NCAA tournament. Coaching, team chemistry, player development and timing still matter. That uncertainty is part of what makes March Madness irresistible.
Yet smaller programs face a growing challenge: developing talent is one thing; retaining it when better-funded schools can offer greater opportunities is another. For schools across the Mid-American Conference and beyond, success increasingly requires financial creativity alongside competitive excellence.
The women’s basketball opportunity
Extra Points also reported median women’s basketball expenses of approximately $2.2 million, compared with $2.9 million for men. Median reported revenue was about $1 million for women’s programs and $2 million for men’s. The gap raises questions about media investment, sponsorship development and the future commercial potential of women’s basketball.
Across Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana, basketball will always be about community pride and unforgettable moments. But the next era will also be shaped by athletic directors, donors, corporate partners and university leaders making difficult financial decisions.
The road to the Final Four has never been more expensive. And the business of getting there is changing the game.
– Jackie Reau
