http://csnbbs.com/thread-668912.html

Not what I expected, that's for sure.

How? Does this count fundraised amounts?

Way better than I expected, but unclear as to how we are pulling it in.

Considering our teams' records, our student size and fan base, not too bad. There is room for lots of improvement. Incidentally, I hear that Tulane's sale of PSLs for its' new stadium will cause its' revenues to rise.

IMO, Revenues means what our budget is, because whatever we spend and don't bring in comes from the University.

What I find incredible is the difference between say CUSA and any p5 conference. The differences are staggering.

(12-25-2013 11:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  IMO, Revenues means what our budget is, because whatever we spend and don't bring in comes from the University.

What I find incredible is the difference between say CUSA and any p5 conference. The differences are staggering.

Can anyone explain why SMU's revenues beat ours by ~20M?

(12-26-2013 08:57 AM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  

(12-25-2013 11:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  IMO, Revenues means what our budget is, because whatever we spend and don't bring in comes from the University.

What I find incredible is the difference between say CUSA and any p5 conference. The differences are staggering.

Can anyone explain why SMU's revenues beat ours by ~20M?

Jones, June
Brown, Larry
Difference in the cost of each scholarship
Complimentary Beemer?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(12-26-2013 09:47 AM)YOwl Ming Wrote:  

(12-26-2013 08:57 AM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  

(12-25-2013 11:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  IMO, Revenues means what our budget is, because whatever we spend and don't bring in comes from the University.

What I find incredible is the difference between say CUSA and any p5 conference. The differences are staggering.

Can anyone explain why SMU's revenues beat ours by ~20M?

Jones, June
Brown, Larry
Difference in the cost of each scholarship
Complimentary Beemer?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Some of it probably because the salaries of Jones and Brown are paid for by donors and not part of the athletic department budget.

A few surprises in there. Rice was a bit higher than I would have thought. Baylor was a bit higher also. Aggies were way lower than I would have expected. Just have a hard time believing that they are only $120,000.00 ahead of Baylor.

(12-25-2013 11:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  IMO, Revenues means what our budget is, because whatever we spend and don't bring in comes from the University.

What I find incredible is the difference between say CUSA and any p5 conference. The differences are staggering.

Yeah, the "revenues" label for Rice is somewhat misleading.

So Rice has the best "revenues" in CUSA? There is a huge difference between the P5 conferences and everyone else. In the "everyone else" category, it looks like Rice is actually doing pretty good. Also it looks like UH made the right move if one looks at revenues only. Their conference is the only one that is in between the P5 and "everyone else."

Your summation is correct, 95... but I believe that among the 'have not's', BY FAR we have the most to offer as a University. If we were to sit in that same spot (slightly, but not dramatically higher than where we are now) , I think we would be able to compete athletically with most p5 schools in everything.... because in REVENUE sports, the only thing they can offer that we can't is an easy path to the NFL/NBA.

What are these numbers measuring? "Revenue" could have several components. At a minimum, it presumably includes all income received which is not tax-deductible for the payor, such as:
- Ticket sales
- Media rights fees
- Advertising sales
- Direct merchandise sales
- Royalties from licensed merchandise sales
- Facility rentals
- Shares of conference revenue
- Bowl payouts


Does it also include:
- Donations directed to Athletics?
- Donations directed to alter egos of Athletics? (Rice doesn't really have this, but other schools probably do -- e.g. an "independent" foundation whose entire purpose to pay the salary of a coach)
- Contributions to the departmental budget from other general university funds?

I could easily see how some schools would report these as revenues, but others might not.

Presumably, "revenue" does not include expenses, such as travel, facility maintenance, salaries. But then again, perhaps some revenue categories have expenses netted out, and some don't.

And presumably it also does not include revenues that go directly to coaches as income supplements, such as speaking fees or camps.

But as loosely as these terms are used in sports reporting, who knows?

I'm not really following you guys (95 and Hambone). It seems safe to assume that Hambone is right and revenue as expressed in this list is simply a reflection of expenses to balance the balance sheet, so to speak. As far as I can tell our place on this list is just a reflection of Rice's relatively high cost of tuition and doesn't tell us much if anything about meaningful revenue sources or amounts.

(12-26-2013 06:41 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  What are these numbers measuring? "Revenue" could have several components. At a minimum, it presumably includes all income received which is not tax-deductible for the payor, such as:
- Ticket sales
- Media rights fees
- Advertising sales
- Direct merchandise sales
- Royalties from licensed merchandise sales
- Facility rentals
- Shares of conference revenue
- Bowl payouts


Does it also include:
- Donations directed to Athletics?
- Donations directed to alter egos of Athletics? (Rice doesn't really have this, but other schools probably do -- e.g. an "independent" foundation whose entire purpose to pay the salary of a coach)
- Contributions to the departmental budget from other general university funds?

I could easily see how some schools would report these as revenues, but others might not.

Presumably, "revenue" does not include expenses, such as travel, facility maintenance, salaries. But then again, perhaps some revenue categories have expenses netted out, and some don't.

And presumably it also does not include revenues that go directly to coaches as income supplements, such as speaking fees or camps.

But as loosely as these terms are used in sports reporting, who knows?

Athletic Department statements of Revenues and Expenses tell you very little in isolation. You need the Balance Sheets and Statement of Cash Flow (Deficit) - actually the footnotes would be nice also - to tell the entire financial story...

They also have suites and tailgating (Boulevarding) spots to sell.

(12-26-2013 08:57 AM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  

(12-25-2013 11:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  IMO, Revenues means what our budget is, because whatever we spend and don't bring in comes from the University.

What I find incredible is the difference between say CUSA and any p5 conference. The differences are staggering.

Can anyone explain why SMU's revenues beat ours by ~20M?

(12-26-2013 09:12 PM)texd Wrote:  They also have suites and tailgating (Boulevarding) spots to sell.

(12-26-2013 08:57 AM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  

(12-25-2013 11:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  IMO, Revenues means what our budget is, because whatever we spend and don't bring in comes from the University.

What I find incredible is the difference between say CUSA and any p5 conference. The differences are staggering.

Can anyone explain why SMU's revenues beat ours by ~20M?

The suites are a big plus.

(12-26-2013 09:47 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(12-26-2013 09:12 PM)texd Wrote:  They also have suites and tailgating (Boulevarding) spots to sell.

(12-26-2013 08:57 AM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  

(12-25-2013 11:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  IMO, Revenues means what our budget is, because whatever we spend and don't bring in comes from the University.

What I find incredible is the difference between say CUSA and any p5 conference. The differences are staggering.

Can anyone explain why SMU's revenues beat ours by ~20M?

The suites are a big plus.

Hence why we shaved 2,000 seats in Moody for luxury boxes

(12-26-2013 09:52 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(12-26-2013 09:47 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(12-26-2013 09:12 PM)texd Wrote:  They also have suites and tailgating (Boulevarding) spots to sell.

(12-26-2013 08:57 AM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  

(12-25-2013 11:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  IMO, Revenues means what our budget is, because whatever we spend and don't bring in comes from the University.

What I find incredible is the difference between say CUSA and any p5 conference. The differences are staggering.

Can anyone explain why SMU's revenues beat ours by ~20M?

The suites are a big plus.

Hence why we shaved 2,000 seats in Moody for luxury boxes

Good move.

Curious if you did what CDC with the remake of Autry into Tudor and that was leaving the aisles/exits the same so that ADA rules wouldn't kick in or did the removal of seats for suites trigger the need for current ADA compliance?

(12-26-2013 06:49 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I'm not really following you guys (95 and Hambone). It seems safe to assume that Hambone is right and revenue as expressed in this list is simply a reflection of expenses to balance the balance sheet, so to speak. As far as I can tell our place on this list is just a reflection of Rice's relatively high cost of tuition and doesn't tell us much if anything about meaningful revenue sources or amounts.

That's not the only thing it reflects, obviously... but it is certainly a major factor.

I'm pretty sure about what I'm saying... but obviously I can't be certain.... but the number looks close to what I've heard/read is our budget.

We run a balanced budget as far as what is reported... meaning all this says is that our EXPENSES are 32mm and we paid all of them from a variety of sources. Our expenses are on the high side of new-CUSA, but in the middle to low vis-a-vis all of the teams who recently left CUSA, and a fraction of most AQ schools, though they also generally sponsor more sports. Especially when you consider that most of those additional sports are non-rev and little/no path to professional sports, the value of a Rice education to those athletes relative to most other schools is enormous... meaning while inclusion in an AQ conference would clearly be good for football, it would be FAR better for things like men's swimming and soccer, diving, field hockey... any of a number of other sports... and we would likely do EXTREMELY well in those sports (as long as we sold it correctly)