Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
"Non-revenue" vs "Olympic"
Author Message
Erictelevision Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,253
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 52
I Root For: Uconn hoops
Location:
Post: #1
"Non-revenue" vs "Olympic"
I'm used to the former term, but have seen the latter here exclusively. Is that because of the negative connotation of "non-revenue"?
03-12-2016 05:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


omniorange Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,144
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:

Donators
Post: #2
RE: "Non-revenue" vs "Olympic"
(03-12-2016 05:03 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  I'm used to the former term, but have seen the latter here exclusively. Is that because of the negative connotation of "non-revenue"?

I would think yes. I suspect women's bb makes revenue for some (e.g. UConn and South Carolina), while men's lacrosse makes revenue for Syracuse and I would imagine men's baseball and men's hockey for more than a couple just don't know off the top of my head.

Of course not sure all of the so-called olympic sports are truly olympic either.

Cheers,
Neil
03-12-2016 05:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #3
RE: "Non-revenue" vs "Olympic"
(03-12-2016 05:11 PM)omniorange Wrote:  
(03-12-2016 05:03 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  I'm used to the former term, but have seen the latter here exclusively. Is that because of the negative connotation of "non-revenue"?

I would think yes. I suspect women's bb makes revenue for some (e.g. UConn and South Carolina), while men's lacrosse makes revenue for Syracuse and I would imagine men's baseball and men's hockey for more than a couple just don't know off the top of my head.

Of course not sure all of the so-called olympic sports are truly olympic either.

Cheers,
Neil

I'd be surprised if anybody besides UConn is making a profit on women'e bball. For most major college teams, women's hoops are probably the biggest money loser of all sports.
03-12-2016 05:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


omniorange Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,144
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:

Donators
Post: #4
RE: "Non-revenue" vs "Olympic"
(03-12-2016 05:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(03-12-2016 05:11 PM)omniorange Wrote:  
(03-12-2016 05:03 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  I'm used to the former term, but have seen the latter here exclusively. Is that because of the negative connotation of "non-revenue"?

I would think yes. I suspect women's bb makes revenue for some (e.g. UConn and South Carolina), while men's lacrosse makes revenue for Syracuse and I would imagine men's baseball and men's hockey for more than a couple just don't know off the top of my head.

Of course not sure all of the so-called olympic sports are truly olympic either.

Cheers,
Neil

I'd be surprised if anybody besides UConn is making a profit on women'e bball. For most major college teams, women's hoops are probably the biggest money loser of all sports.

I suspect that those women's bb teams who average 7K plus in attendance make some money on the sport. Outside of UConn, according to the OPE site last year ND reported making $4.5 million in revenue, Iowa State $3.5 million, and Louisville just under $3 million.

I believe it is also the most televised college sport after football and men's bb. And outside of schollies, it would be hard to imagine that the sport carries with it a lot of expenses since mostly everything is already in place on campus.

But still agree that it is not a "revenue" sport for most, mainly due to attendance figures which for most schools is ridiculously low.

Cheers,
Neil
03-12-2016 05:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Offline
The Black Knight of The Deplorables

Posts: 9,618
Joined: Oct 2013
I Root For: Army, SFU
Location: Michie Stadium 1945
Post: #5
RE: "Non-revenue" vs "Olympic"
They use Olympic for the same reason garbagemen are called sanitation engineers. It sounds more professional.
03-12-2016 05:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Erictelevision Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,253
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 52
I Root For: Uconn hoops
Location:
Post: #6
RE: "Non-revenue" vs "Olympic"
(03-12-2016 05:47 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  They use Olympic for the same reason garbagemen are called sanitation engineers. It sounds more professional.

That is exactly what I assumed. :)
03-12-2016 05:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Online
Five Minute Google Expert
*

Posts: 16,359
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #7
RE: "Non-revenue" vs "Olympic"
Maybe I'm wrong, but when I hear/read "Olympic sports", I include men's basketball. They play basketball in the Olympics, after all. The nice thing about having different terms is that they cover different things.

Olympic = all college sports except football, hockey
Non-revenue = all sports except football, men's basketball, some hockey programs. Varies somewhat from school to school--some places might make a few nickels on baseball or wrestling or lacrosse. Non-revenue sports are the ones that only exist to meet Division I or FBS or Title IX requirements, or because of a philosophy that more athletics is just good in general.

Maybe that's an old hybrid Big East legacy?
03-12-2016 06:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Erictelevision Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,253
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 52
I Root For: Uconn hoops
Location:
Post: #8
RE: "Non-revenue" vs "Olympic"
John: I semi-agree with your 3rd guess. To me the non-revenue sports include:

Field Hockey
Ice Hockey
Lacrosse
Golf
Swimming & Diving
Tennis
XC/Track
Softball
Volleyball
Baseball

IOW: any sport without a significant pro prescence OR it has an official minor league system.
(This post was last modified: 03-12-2016 06:37 PM by Erictelevision.)
03-12-2016 06:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 9,478
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 766
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #9
RE: "Non-revenue" vs "Olympic"
(03-12-2016 05:38 PM)omniorange Wrote:  
(03-12-2016 05:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(03-12-2016 05:11 PM)omniorange Wrote:  
(03-12-2016 05:03 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  I'm used to the former term, but have seen the latter here exclusively. Is that because of the negative connotation of "non-revenue"?

I would think yes. I suspect women's bb makes revenue for some (e.g. UConn and South Carolina), while men's lacrosse makes revenue for Syracuse and I would imagine men's baseball and men's hockey for more than a couple just don't know off the top of my head.

Of course not sure all of the so-called olympic sports are truly olympic either.

Cheers,
Neil

I'd be surprised if anybody besides UConn is making a profit on women'e bball. For most major college teams, women's hoops are probably the biggest money loser of all sports.

I suspect that those women's bb teams who average 7K plus in attendance make some money on the sport. Outside of UConn, according to the OPE site last year ND reported making $4.5 million in revenue, Iowa State $3.5 million, and Louisville just under $3 million.

I believe it is also the most televised college sport after football and men's bb. And outside of schollies, it would be hard to imagine that the sport carries with it a lot of expenses since mostly everything is already in place on campus.

But still agree that it is not a "revenue" sport for most, mainly due to attendance figures which for most schools is ridiculously low.

Cheers,
Neil

I can't imagine that an average women's bb program would cost more than $1 million a year to run:
150k - head coach
180k - 3 assistant coaches
150k - Travel (20 people * $500 * 15 away games, probably high)
520k - scholarships (13 * 40k)

Assuming $20 per fan (which is probably low after parking and concessions are included), any school with over 50,000 fans per year is breaking even. There's about 40 schools at that level. It would seem that 20-30 schools probably make a profit from WBB.
03-13-2016 12:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


BruceMcF Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,108
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 763
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #10
RE: "Non-revenue" vs "Olympic"
Yes "Olympic sports" is a (oftimes not entirely accurate) shorthand to refer to sports other than FB, since the three-way division of Division 1 means that some conferences are all-sports conferences including FB and some are "all sports except for FB" conferences.

As far as additional sports which are surplus generating at some schools, there are certainly some, though on the other hand, a full accounting of costs would also include a user cost for facilities, and while some rely on facilities built with fund raising driven by those sports, some rely on facilities built on the back of fundraising for FB and Men's BBall.

So part of the status of the two "revenue" sports is that they don't merely earn an operating surplus, but are also often primary drivers for facilities fund raising and their surpluses are sufficient to both maintain a big chunk of the costs of the operating costs of the subsidy sports and to drive coaching salaries arm races.

Rather than fight a semantic battle over sports that require no subsidy help from FB or Men's Bball, I prefer to break down the "non-revenue" sports into a "breakeven" and "subsidy" sports ... recognizing that in many cases a sport may be a break-even sport for one school and a subsidy sport for another school. And, of course, due to facilities and coaching arms races in FB and BBall, for many programs one, the other or both require subsidy of some sort from the institution. So Lacrosse in the ACC, Ice Hockey at some of the Big Ten Hockey schools, Women's BBall at a number of the elite and relatively well-supported Women's BBall programs, etc.
(This post was last modified: 03-13-2016 03:43 AM by BruceMcF.)
03-13-2016 03:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MJG Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,278
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 30
I Root For: U I , UMich, SC
Location: Myrtle Beach
Post: #11
RE: "Non-revenue" vs "Olympic"
I read somewhere almost all college hockey programs make money.

FCOA attendance should be tied to revenue if the sport makes money offer it otherwise no.
03-13-2016 11:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.