Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
Author Message
MplsBison Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,968
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 159
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #21
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
(03-18-2017 09:06 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  I"m pretty sure USA Today uses what's reported to the NCAA.

Schools don't need to report participation and revenues to the NCAA. They need to report them to the Dept of Education. And they do ... that's what the EiA database is. It's the DoEd's database, for providing transparency to the participation and revenue numbers for varsity athletics in higher education throughout the country.


I could be wrong on this, but I think the USA Today numbers are from surveys that USAT sends to the FBS schools, and they voluntarily fill out and return.
03-18-2017 11:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,873
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 275
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #22
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
(03-18-2017 11:56 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(03-18-2017 09:06 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  I"m pretty sure USA Today uses what's reported to the NCAA.

Schools don't need to report participation and revenues to the NCAA. They need to report them to the Dept of Education. And they do ... that's what the EiA database is. It's the DoEd's database, for providing transparency to the participation and revenue numbers for varsity athletics in higher education throughout the country.


I could be wrong on this, but I think the USA Today numbers are from surveys that USAT sends to the FBS schools, and they voluntarily fill out and return.

They are required to submit financial statement to the NCAA annually that should be audited by an independent source based on agreed upon procedures.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/fina...ivision=d1

USA Today uses these numbers but the figures are only available if the schools are required to make them public (read public universities). And is why there are no private university figures on USA Today.

http://sports.usatoday.com/2016/04/14/me...-database/

Why a school would report different revenues to the DOE and the NCAA I don't know. ODU's have always been the same I think.

If you're looking for participation data then DOE is the best bet. NCAA is trying to clarify their reporting requirements to (hopefully) see more uniform reporting amongst Universities across the country. We'll see.
03-18-2017 12:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,968
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 159
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #23
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
Thank you very much for correcting me and for clarifying. +3


I think we can almost universally say this: give a large enough organization two different survey's to fill out, that ask for similar but not exactly the same things, and you'll almost always get two sets of numbers that don't tie out!
03-18-2017 12:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 18,798
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 525
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #24
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
If you are a university president and I gave you these options

1. Athletic department spends a bit more than it brings in and requires transfers of university revenue (direct or via student fee) in order to make budget.
2. Athletic department spends less than it brings in and transfers profit to fund the operations of the university.

Which would you choose?

Answer is simple. You choose option 1.
Why would you choose it? In option 1, the AD needs your support to do what he/she wishes to do. Choose option 2 and suddenly there may be a last minute expense that can't be avoided if the AD is displeased.

No president who understands the politics of it all is putting their AD in a position to have control over what they do.
03-18-2017 10:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,651
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 416
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #25
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
(03-18-2017 07:17 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  There should be a subsidy. It would be terrible management to not have one for several reasons:
1) subsidies strengthen athletic programs (at most schools - not the super rich), which provide value to the academic side (exposure, student life, alumni donations, etc). So the academic side should subsidize to the extent that the benefits of their subsidy outweigh the cost.
2) the athletic side pays tuition for those scholarships that it provides. Part of the tuition covers fixed costs for the incremental students. In theory, the AD should cover the variable costs + any special VC's related to any hits in academic prestige related to athletic admissions. The rest of the payment is essentially an athletic subsidy of the academic side. A reverse subsidy from the university to the AD nets everything back out.

IMO, there should be no "net back out": Athletics should always be subordinate to academics, which is by definition the ultimate mission of the university. Athletics has to justify its existence as a marketing tool for academics, basically your point #1 above. So athletics is an investment made by academics to strengthen academics.

Like all investments, it shouldn't net out, there should be a positive return on that investment, meaning athletics should return to academics more than academics invests in it. If it doesn't, the money should be invested elsewhere.

The kinds of subsidies we see, soaking students for athletics, is in most cases unconscionable, reflects mission-perversion.

LSU is messed up in many ways, but one thing they do right is the athletics/academics financial relationship. By policy, athletics has to be self-funding, no subsidies, and then athletics is required to make a payment to the university, currently a minimum of $7.5 million, but more if revenues are higher than expected. IIRC, the payment was $10m last year. That's athletics playing its proper role, as an investment by academics that is paying off with a positive return, not costing it money.
(This post was last modified: 03-19-2017 07:18 AM by quo vadis.)
03-19-2017 07:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,968
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 159
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #26
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
(03-19-2017 07:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  athletics should return to academics more than academics invests in it.

It always does.

You simply can't tangibly measure all of those returns.
(This post was last modified: 03-19-2017 10:53 AM by MplsBison.)
03-19-2017 10:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,651
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 416
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #27
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
(03-19-2017 10:53 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(03-19-2017 07:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  athletics should return to academics more than academics invests in it.

It always does.

You simply can't tangibly measure all of those returns.

IOW's, you're trusting that it always does, when in fact it may often not. 07-coffee3
03-19-2017 01:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Online
NCR Ranger
*

Posts: 1,892
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 35
I Root For: UGa,USM,UO,Troy
Location: Dothan, AL
Post: #28
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
(03-17-2017 06:51 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(03-17-2017 12:10 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Anyway, I'd like to see the list with the subsidies removed looks like, and also each school's institutional subsidy total.

This USA Today list breaks out subsidies, both by percentage and by total dollars.

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

No offense Wedge, but that information is out of date
03-23-2017 02:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
There will be no extra point.
*

Posts: 11,659
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 331
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #29
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
(03-23-2017 02:13 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(03-17-2017 06:51 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(03-17-2017 12:10 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Anyway, I'd like to see the list with the subsidies removed looks like, and also each school's institutional subsidy total.

This USA Today list breaks out subsidies, both by percentage and by total dollars.

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

No offense Wedge, but that information is out of date

It's 2014-15 data. USA Today will have their chart with 2015-16 data out in about a month.
03-23-2017 02:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,968
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 159
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #30
RE: FBS Athletic Dept Total Revenues
(03-19-2017 01:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  you're trusting that it always does

If it didn't, they'd cut the whole athletic program.

Like I said, your just using the wrong viewpoint of only looking at the tangible/measurable aspect of it. The other aspect is much larger, and ultimately more important in the grand scheme of life.
03-23-2017 02:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 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.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.