(04-19-2016 08:44 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 05:44 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Is Pittsburgh really a public?

Pitt (and Temple) were originally fully private schools that are now some sort of state-private hybrid (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonweal..._Education ).

Quote:Universities of the Commonwealth System are considered public universities by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching because they offer reduced tuition for citizens of the Commonwealth and therefore are often referred to as "public" universities in publications, by the state, and the schools themselves. Because their annual state allocations that supplement less than 10% of their budgets, universities in the Commonwealth System tend to have higher tuition costs compared to the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education which contains 14 state-owned and operated universities. Because of their independence, universities in the Commonwealth System are exempt from Pennsylvania's Open Records law except for a few minor provisions.

In other words, Pennsylvania is unique. Pitt (and Penn St. and Temple) really is a public, but with a twist.

(04-19-2016 01:07 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Why are these categories important? Because if you are last in Gross Revenue and last in Expenditures it will be very hard to compete with those who are the Top Earners and Spenders. The Gaps here are more significant than elsewhere. That's nothing new, but to look at the actual numbers should be somewhat sobering.

So are you trying to suggest that ACC schools should just give up, stop trying to compete? Yes, we know that SEC and B1G programs make the most money... but I guess we need to be reminded at least once every week just in case we forget?

(04-19-2016 12:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  ACC Privates:
B.C. Revenue: $69,300,736 Expenses: $69,300,736 Profit: $ 0
Duke Revenue: $91,688,202 Expenses: $91,174,723 Profit: $ 513,479
Miami Revenue: $77,724,833 Expenses: $76,495,820 Profit: $ 1,229,013
Pittsburgh Revenue:$70,527,488 Expenses: $70,527,488 Profit: $ 0
Syracuse Revenue: $87,175,761 Expenses: $67,391,194 Profit: $19,784,567
Wake Forest Rev.: $58,672,116 Expenses: $57,865,117 Profit: $ 806,999
Total Revenue: $455,089,136 Expenses: $432,755,078 Profit: $ 22,344,058

*Notre Dame Revenue: $121,260,381 Expenses: 100,035,451 Profit: $21,224,923

Big12 Privates:
Baylor Revenue: $106,078,643 Expenses: $106,078,643 Profit: $ 0
T.C.U. Revenue: $ 80,608,562 Expenses: $ 80,608,562 Profit: $ 0
Total Revenue: $186,687,205 Expenses: $186,687,205 Profit: $ 0

PAC Privates:
U.S.C. Revenue: $105,919,366 Expenses: $105,919,366 Profit: $ 0
Stanford Revenue: $109,670,730 Expenses: $109,668,805 Profit: $ 1,925
Total Revenue: $215,590,096 Expenses: $215,588,171 Profit $ 1,925

Big10 Privates:
Northwestern $ 70,028,074 Expenses: $ 70,028,074 Profit: $ 0

SEC Privates:
Vanderbilt Revenue:$ 70,661,736 Expenses: $ 68,615,451 Profit: $ 2,046,285

The very fact that many schools report expenses as being exactly equal to revenues demonstrates conclusively that they are "cooking the books". I believe one could argue that every school in these reports is cooking its books in some fashion or other. By their very nature, none of these reports are fully credible.

(04-18-2016 09:20 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 04:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 02:17 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 01:54 PM)TerryD Wrote:  As JR notes, the information is incomplete as it lacks any input from private schools like ND, Stanford, Syracuse, Duke, etc...

For the ACC that's half the conference!

Actually that would be a little over 1/3rd of the conference. Miami, Wake Forest, Duke, Boston College, Syracuse. Notre Dame is harder to calculate since football revenue is not a part of it.

Publics included: Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Louisville, North Carolina, N.C. State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State.

However there are various components to be considered here. Average Gross Revenue, Average Gross Expense, Average Subsidy, Average Net Profit.


For Instance among the P5:

ACC Average Gross Revenue (9 schools): 80.37 million
ACC Average Gross Expense: 78.00 million
ACC Average Profit per School: 2.37 million before subsidies.

PAC Average Gross Revenue (10 schools): 81.30 million
PAC Average Gross Expense: 82.80 million
PAC Average Profit per School: 1.50 million

Big12 Average Gross Revenue (8 schools): 103.33 million
Big12 Average Gross Expense: 98.49 million
Big12 Average Profit per School: 4.84 million

Big10 Average Gross Revenue (13 schools):108.50 million
Big10 Average Gross Expense: 106.60 million
Big10 Average Porfit per School: 1.90 million

SEC Average Gross Revenue (13 schools): 122.52 million
SEC Average Gross Expense: 105.61 million
SEC Average Profit per School: 17.21 million

Now by taking the Gross Revenue & Expense numbers and eliminating the subsidies which are too random to calculate to satisfaction here is what you get:

1. SEC 17.21 million per school
2. Big12 4.84 million per school
3. ACC 2.37 million per school
4. Big10 1.90 million per school
5. PAC12 1.50 million per school

Gross Revenue:

1. SEC 122.52 million per school
2. Big10 108.50 million per school
3. Big12 106.63 million per school
4. PAC12 81.30 million per school
5. ACC 80.37 million per school

Gross Expenditures:

1. Big10 106.60 million per school
2. SEC 105.61 million per school
3. Big12 98.49 million per school
4. PAC12 82.80 million per school
5. ACC 78.00 million per school

Why are these categories important? Because if you are last in Gross Revenue and last in Expenditures it will be very hard to compete with those who are the Top Earners and Spenders. The Gaps here are more significant than elsewhere. That's nothing new, but to look at the actual numbers should be somewhat sobering.

Actually Pitt is not included in the Publics http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

I guess the writer was too stupid or too lazy to consult the US Department of Educations' Equity in Athletics site http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/

For FY 14/15 Duke showed revenue of 91.6 million and expenses of 91.1 million

For FY 14/15 Syracuse showed revenue of 87.1 million and expenses of 67.3 million.

For FY 14/15 ND showed revenue of 121.2 million and expenses of 100 million.

Pitt and BC showed a balanced ledger at 70.5 million and 69.3 million each and Miami showed 77.7 in revenue and 76.4 in expenses, while Wake Forest had $58.6 million in revenue and 57.8 in expenses.

7 out of the 15 are private or considered private as is the case with Pitt and they averaged $82.2 million in revenue and $76 million in expenses.

JR you might want to recalculate dividing the ACC numbers by 8 instead of 9, I get an average, non subsidized revenue of $82.5 million for the publics, and an average spent of $87.5 million but as other have alluded to, what is a subsidy? Is it the way a particular school charges for student tickets for instance some schools don't have a charge to students for tickets, others make you buy one with cash, others are making you use a student fee pool. Also the way the accounting used to be done at UNC, most of that so-called subsidy is the Ed Foundations annual transfer in to fund all the athletic scholarships. That money is held by the University, not the Ram's Club, and it may be that the Cavilers do it the same way.

It's also odd that the NCAA figures would be used http://sports.usatoday.com/2016/04/14/me...-database/ along with the false claim that numbers are not required from private universities when that's a bald faced lie and are required under Title IX compliance and easily found at Equity in Athletics.

Legitimate journalism is a dying art form.

(04-19-2016 10:38 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 12:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  ACC Privates:
B.C. Revenue: $69,300,736 Expenses: $69,300,736 Profit: $ 0
Duke Revenue: $91,688,202 Expenses: $91,174,723 Profit: $ 513,479
Miami Revenue: $77,724,833 Expenses: $76,495,820 Profit: $ 1,229,013
Pittsburgh Revenue:$70,527,488 Expenses: $70,527,488 Profit: $ 0
Syracuse Revenue: $87,175,761 Expenses: $67,391,194 Profit: $19,784,567
Wake Forest Rev.: $58,672,116 Expenses: $57,865,117 Profit: $ 806,999
Total Revenue: $455,089,136 Expenses: $432,755,078 Profit: $ 22,344,058

*Notre Dame Revenue: $121,260,381 Expenses: 100,035,451 Profit: $21,224,923

Big12 Privates:
Baylor Revenue: $106,078,643 Expenses: $106,078,643 Profit: $ 0
T.C.U. Revenue: $ 80,608,562 Expenses: $ 80,608,562 Profit: $ 0
Total Revenue: $186,687,205 Expenses: $186,687,205 Profit: $ 0

PAC Privates:
U.S.C. Revenue: $105,919,366 Expenses: $105,919,366 Profit: $ 0
Stanford Revenue: $109,670,730 Expenses: $109,668,805 Profit: $ 1,925
Total Revenue: $215,590,096 Expenses: $215,588,171 Profit $ 1,925

Big10 Privates:
Northwestern $ 70,028,074 Expenses: $ 70,028,074 Profit: $ 0

SEC Privates:
Vanderbilt Revenue:$ 70,661,736 Expenses: $ 68,615,451 Profit: $ 2,046,285

The very fact that many schools report expenses as being exactly equal to revenues demonstrates conclusively that they are "cooking the books". I believe one could argue that every school in these reports is cooking its books in some fashion or other. By their very nature, none of these reports are fully credible.

That may or may not be true, but the ND athletic department profit number is sent over to the academic side for regular student scholarships, so that profit number seems legit.


This is from 2006-07, but the numbers have been pretty consistent over time:


"Revenues from the NBC contract have played a key role in Notre Dame's financial aid endowment since the start of the relationship in 1991. University officers decided then to use a portion of the football television contract revenue for undergraduate scholarship endowment (not athletic scholarships). To date, some 6,300 Notre Dame undergraduate students have received nearly $80 million in aid from revenue generated through the NBC contract.

The University also has committed revenue from NBC to endow doctoral fellowships in its Graduate School and MBA scholarships in its Mendoza College of Business."


http://www.und.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-...13aaa.html

"Unlike the other programs on our list, Notre Dame's athletic department operates under the umbrella of the university and is not run as its own distinct entity. As a result, a much higher share of profits are retained by university for academic use. The football team's contribution to academics totaled $21.1 million for the 2006-2007 season--that's as much as the next five most valuable teams contributed to their respective schools combined."



http://www.forbes.com/2007/11/20/notre-d...eball.html

Here is a link to some more numbers from 2012-13, for some comparison:

http://www.thekeyplay.com/content/2014/j...t-revenues

(04-19-2016 10:38 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 12:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  ACC Privates:
B.C. Revenue: $69,300,736 Expenses: $69,300,736 Profit: $ 0
Duke Revenue: $91,688,202 Expenses: $91,174,723 Profit: $ 513,479
Miami Revenue: $77,724,833 Expenses: $76,495,820 Profit: $ 1,229,013
Pittsburgh Revenue:$70,527,488 Expenses: $70,527,488 Profit: $ 0
Syracuse Revenue: $87,175,761 Expenses: $67,391,194 Profit: $19,784,567
Wake Forest Rev.: $58,672,116 Expenses: $57,865,117 Profit: $ 806,999
Total Revenue: $455,089,136 Expenses: $432,755,078 Profit: $ 22,344,058

*Notre Dame Revenue: $121,260,381 Expenses: 100,035,451 Profit: $21,224,923

Big12 Privates:
Baylor Revenue: $106,078,643 Expenses: $106,078,643 Profit: $ 0
T.C.U. Revenue: $ 80,608,562 Expenses: $ 80,608,562 Profit: $ 0
Total Revenue: $186,687,205 Expenses: $186,687,205 Profit: $ 0

PAC Privates:
U.S.C. Revenue: $105,919,366 Expenses: $105,919,366 Profit: $ 0
Stanford Revenue: $109,670,730 Expenses: $109,668,805 Profit: $ 1,925
Total Revenue: $215,590,096 Expenses: $215,588,171 Profit $ 1,925

Big10 Privates:
Northwestern $ 70,028,074 Expenses: $ 70,028,074 Profit: $ 0

SEC Privates:
Vanderbilt Revenue:$ 70,661,736 Expenses: $ 68,615,451 Profit: $ 2,046,285

The very fact that many schools report expenses as being exactly equal to revenues demonstrates conclusively that they are "cooking the books". I believe one could argue that every school in these reports is cooking its books in some fashion or other. By their very nature, none of these reports are fully credible.

Not only that, but schools don't have expenses for the same number of athletic teams. The B1G sponsors a lot more sports than some other conferences so the expenses are going to be a lot higher.

(04-19-2016 10:38 AM)ken d Wrote:  The very fact that many schools report expenses as being exactly equal to revenues demonstrates conclusively that they are "cooking the books". I believe one could argue that every school in these reports is cooking its books in some fashion or other. By their very nature, none of these reports are fully credible.

They are "non-profit" organizations, so they don't report profits. If income is a little ahead of expenses, they find some way to squirrel away the excess for when it's going to be spent, without reporting it as surplus, or if it's the other way around then (hopefully) the expenses are covered by previously-received income.

To the extent that income greatly exceeds expenses for a given year, it's likely that the "surplus" is money donated this year for ongoing construction projects, e.g. the USA Today figures for Texas A&M this year and Oregon two years ago.

Having said that, yes, there is a lot of creative accounting going on. Nobody is making full disclosures and reporting financials that have been independently audited. The numbers reported by the media or given to the federal government are meant to create the appearance of genuine disclosure.

(04-19-2016 11:02 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 10:38 AM)ken d Wrote:  The very fact that many schools report expenses as being exactly equal to revenues demonstrates conclusively that they are "cooking the books". I believe one could argue that every school in these reports is cooking its books in some fashion or other. By their very nature, none of these reports are fully credible.

They are "non-profit" organizations, so they don't report profits. If income is a little ahead of expenses, they find some way to squirrel away the excess for when it's going to be spent, without reporting it as surplus, or if it's the other way around then (hopefully) the expenses are covered by previously-received income.

To the extent that income greatly exceeds expenses for a given year, it's likely that the "surplus" is money donated this year for ongoing construction projects, e.g. the USA Today figures for Texas A&M this year and Oregon two years ago.

Having said that, yes, there is a lot of creative accounting going on. Nobody is making full disclosures and reporting financials that have been independently audited. The numbers reported by the media or given to the federal government are meant to create the appearance of genuine disclosure.

I read the reports Wedge and what you are saying is correct. Most of them that zeroed the ledger did so with "unspecified athletic revenue" or "unspecified expense", which I took to be carryover revenue being spent or a write off to pigeon hole for future use. But, LP4 looks at this a lot more so maybe he can speak to this.

This is why Cuse has a healthy profit margin ($40 Tix 100+ yards from center court)--->







Hottie Duke fan from Rochester

(04-18-2016 02:35 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  These numbers are sort of meaningless unless/until standardized accounting principles are applied. For instance, how are scholarships accounted. At some schools the athletic department pays the school the instate rate for all players and the in state/out of state tuition difference for out of state athletes is counted as an athletic department subsidy. This is far from universal though.

On top of that, in a lot of cases, to ensure they don't show a profit (and have to return money, or lose subsidies) a lot of schools spend the profits" prior to the end of the year, so that they don't show a huge profit. The date in which you spend your profits, often is the difference between black and red.

Edit: I wrote this before I saw Wedge's post, that basically says the same thing, but in more detail.

(04-19-2016 01:42 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 02:35 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  These numbers are sort of meaningless unless/until standardized accounting principles are applied. For instance, how are scholarships accounted. At some schools the athletic department pays the school the instate rate for all players and the in state/out of state tuition difference for out of state athletes is counted as an athletic department subsidy. This is far from universal though.

On top of that, in a lot of cases, to ensure they don't show a profit (and have to return money, or lose subsidies) a lot of schools spend the profits" prior to the end of the year, so that they don't show a huge profit. The date in which you spend your profits, often is the difference between black and red.

Edit: I wrote this before I saw Wedge's post, that basically says the same thing, but in more detail.

To focus on subsidies, or profit margins alone is to miss the big picture. The big picture is in gross revenue and gross expenditures. Therein lie the differences that drive instability. The gap has gotten larger, not smaller.

The pettifogging that goes on around here to keep from admitting the obvious is staggering, but sadly in keeping with issues of greater scope facing the nation. By all means lets focus on minutia while the real monsters loom at the door!

1 PAC school (a private) & 5 ACC schools (4 private & 1 public) operated in the black, in a conference distant from the leaders in gross revenue and distant from the leaders in the conferences with the greatest expenditures. That means that those operating in the red have a larger deficit to overcome to be competitive when in the laggards in expenditures they still operate in the red.

Notably only 5 Big 10 schools operated in the black (all state schools). But they do have the highest expenditures for sports. The Big 12 had 3 schools (all public) in the black and they ran a respectable third in expenditures.

There is a chasm that is yawning with regard to gross revenue and expenditures and with regard to that chasm when all 14 SEC schools operated in the black that fact alone should be concerning.

(04-19-2016 11:02 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 10:38 AM)ken d Wrote:  The very fact that many schools report expenses as being exactly equal to revenues demonstrates conclusively that they are "cooking the books". I believe one could argue that every school in these reports is cooking its books in some fashion or other. By their very nature, none of these reports are fully credible.

They are "non-profit" organizations, so they don't report profits. If income is a little ahead of expenses, they find some way to squirrel away the excess for when it's going to be spent, without reporting it as surplus, or if it's the other way around then (hopefully) the expenses are covered by previously-received income.

To the extent that income greatly exceeds expenses for a given year, it's likely that the "surplus" is money donated this year for ongoing construction projects, e.g. the USA Today figures for Texas A&M this year and Oregon two years ago.

Having said that, yes, there is a lot of creative accounting going on. Nobody is making full disclosures and reporting financials that have been independently audited. The numbers reported by the media or given to the federal government are meant to create the appearance of genuine disclosure.

It's not likely that will ever change, since all the players have agendas that are being served by having undefined accounting rules. Nevertheless, I think it's also clear to most observers that some schools, mostly in the B1G and the SEC, have a decided financial edge over everybody else that would be confirmed if everybody reported using the same standard rules.

The details aren't all that important when the gap is as large as it appears to be. Media contracts tell part of the story, especially as they relate to the B1G. But even if everybody had an equal media deal, the SEC would still be far ahead if for no other reason than the indisputable fact that they generate vastly larger revenues at the gate. That's simply the marketplace speaking loud and clear. Fans in the SEC footprint are more avid about college football, and more of them pay higher prices to watch it. That's not rocket science.

(04-18-2016 11:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 11:06 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 12:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  These figures are the compilation of per school revenue (state schools) as posted by USA Today for 2016 and as compiled by a poster on another site (Woomba). I thought they would be very advantageous to the board:

Incorrect. That recent data is for the 2014-15 school year.

They come out every calendar year and are for the preceding fiscal year. The same is true of attendance figures. The report date listed is 2016 but it is for the fiscal year ending 2015.

And by the way, it doesn't change the data reported. It is what it is.

Your statement was technically incorrect and left the reader a false impression. I simply corrected it.

Of course this list comes out every year. Of course it is what it is.

If you look at the top left of this page between the A&M symbol and NCAA Finances, it says "2014-15" finances.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

The 2015-16 school year isn't over, and the 2015-16 tax returns have not been filed.

One reason this is important: context. For example, schools account for capital project donations differently. Some include them in the "Contributions" column. Some don't.

Clearly, A&M counted its football stadium contributions in the "Contributions" column. It's $56M more than it was in 2013-14. A&M has never come close to $92M in annual contributions before, nor will it again.

Houston, on the other hand, raised over $60M from alumni contributions when building its football stadium that opened in 2014. Our stadium contributions were never reported in the USAToday "Contributions" column.

As I said, different schools report differently.

Bottom line, I wouldn't get all "hot diggety dog" about A&M's 2014-15 revenue numbers. Sure, they grew by $73M since 2013-14. But they are likely to shrink by $50M in 2015-16.

(04-19-2016 12:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 11:02 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 10:38 AM)ken d Wrote:  The very fact that many schools report expenses as being exactly equal to revenues demonstrates conclusively that they are "cooking the books". I believe one could argue that every school in these reports is cooking its books in some fashion or other. By their very nature, none of these reports are fully credible.

They are "non-profit" organizations, so they don't report profits. If income is a little ahead of expenses, they find some way to squirrel away the excess for when it's going to be spent, without reporting it as surplus, or if it's the other way around then (hopefully) the expenses are covered by previously-received income.

To the extent that income greatly exceeds expenses for a given year, it's likely that the "surplus" is money donated this year for ongoing construction projects, e.g. the USA Today figures for Texas A&M this year and Oregon two years ago.

Having said that, yes, there is a lot of creative accounting going on. Nobody is making full disclosures and reporting financials that have been independently audited. The numbers reported by the media or given to the federal government are meant to create the appearance of genuine disclosure.

I read the reports Wedge and what you are saying is correct. Most of them that zeroed the ledger did so with "unspecified athletic revenue" or "unspecified expense", which I took to be carryover revenue being spent or a write off to pigeon hole for future use. But, LP4 looks at this a lot more so maybe he can speak to this.

When you need to hire an accountant to make nice reports to the board, you ask one question: "what is two plus two?"

If they say four you say thank you and call the next person until you find a person who says "what do you want it to be?"

Without known the basis of accounting and the legitimacy of accouning in each state for the public it's tough to compare. You can subsidize damn near anything at a public or private entity if you want to do that. Internal service funds, accumulated depreciation, charging administrative overhead, it's easy to do.

From an internal political and state political standpoint, I know that UVa, VT, UNC, and NC State can not show a profit from athletics - their boards can't take the heat for that and their legislatures don't want that heat. I don't know the situation at Clemson, but suspect they can't get away with showing a large profit.

Now, if you make enough to make big cash contributions to the General Fund as does Duke, Ohio State, Texas, etc., then it makes political sense to show the profit.

In reality there are three sets of books:

1. Books for the State if you are public
2. Books for the Feds if you are public or private and take Federal Funds
3. The real books you keep in the AD's office, Chancellor or President's Office, and the VC or VP of Finance's Office.

The relative revenue position of the P-5 schools CAN'T change very much as that revenue stream is based in large measure on the size and age of the school. Yes the top schools can generate more money, but they have ALWAYS had more money - it's like trying to move up in an academic ranking, someone else has to drop for you to rise.

Accounting purists will not like my opinion, but that goes back to my question about what is a subsidy? A subsidy is what someone defines it as for the moment. What person A calls a subsidy, person B calls social security. What college A calls a student ticket, college B calls a athletic department subsidy.

And in the final analysis, these sports are played by these universities in order to market the university so the athletic department budget outside the larger context is like discussing your spleen which is an organ inside your body. The sports programs are also a cloak that hides amazing money eating machines - they are the visible punching bag.