(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)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.

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!

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 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.

(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.

(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.

(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)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.

(03-19-2017 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.

(03-19-2017 07:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

LSU is a horrible example because they are part of a cartel currently dominating college sports...and an elite level of that cartel at that. Their experience isn't the experience of the majority of FBS football members.

In addition, if the people of Wyoming, its legislature, and its university board, want to allow their university to subsidize athletics because they see value in that investment...then what business is it of people outside of Wyoming to demand that they not?

(03-18-2017 10:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  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.

Notre Dame picked Option #2 a long time ago.

The athletic department transfers its profits into the general fund of the university and have been doing so since at least 1991, when it first signed its NBC contract.

From 1991:

"Notre Dame gains $38 million, which it plans to distribute to the general scholarship fund, not just to the athletic department."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-...e-football


From 1993:


"So how does all this get paid for? Notre Dame is close to unique in that the net revenue from the athletic department goes to the school's general fund. All bowl money and a large amount of the NBC-generated television income goes toward academic scholarships.

"The last two years, among bowl money, the NBC contract and licensing and marketing," said Beauchamp, "we've increased our endowment for scholarships by close to $18 million."

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-09-11/s...tre-dame/2


From 2010:


Here is a good description on how (and how much) ND athletics transfers to the academic side from a 2010 book on money in college athletics:

https://books.google.com/books?id=GG4u3R...ps&f=false



From 2013:

"Notre Dame plans to continue using revenues from the contract to fund the school's financial-aid endowment for the general student body, not including athletes. The school said that since 1991 (this is a 2013 article), about 6,300 undergraduates have received nearly $80 million in aid from revenue generated through the NBC contract.

Notre Dame also uses NBC revenues to endow doctoral fellowships in its graduate school and MBA scholarships in its Mendoza College of Business."

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...-deal-2025


So, I think that there are many obvious benefits to having an athletic department make a profit, provided that it doesn't just spend it all on itself while continuing to collect student fees and other subsidies.

I don't see any real upside to a college athletic program that loses money consistently.

(03-24-2017 11:16 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-18-2017 10:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  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.

Notre Dame picked Option #2 a long time ago.

The athletic department transfers its profits into the general fund of the university and have been doing so since at least 1991, when it first signed its NBC contract.

From 1991:

"Notre Dame gains $38 million, which it plans to distribute to the general scholarship fund, not just to the athletic department."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-...e-football


From 1993:


"So how does all this get paid for? Notre Dame is close to unique in that the net revenue from the athletic department goes to the school's general fund. All bowl money and a large amount of the NBC-generated television income goes toward academic scholarships.

"The last two years, among bowl money, the NBC contract and licensing and marketing," said Beauchamp, "we've increased our endowment for scholarships by close to $18 million."

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-09-11/s...tre-dame/2


From 2010:


Here is a good description on how (and how much) ND athletics transfers to the academic side from a 2010 book on money in college athletics:

https://books.google.com/books?id=GG4u3R...ps&f=false



From 2013:

"Notre Dame plans to continue using revenues from the contract to fund the school's financial-aid endowment for the general student body, not including athletes. The school said that since 1991 (this is a 2013 article), about 6,300 undergraduates have received nearly $80 million in aid from revenue generated through the NBC contract.

Notre Dame also uses NBC revenues to endow doctoral fellowships in its graduate school and MBA scholarships in its Mendoza College of Business."

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...-deal-2025


So, I think that there are many obvious benefits to having an athletic department make a profit, provided that it doesn't just spend it all on itself while continuing to collect student fees and other subsidies.

I don't see any real upside to a college athletic program that loses money consistently.

That's great that Notre Dame does that, and I'm sure the students as well as the parents appreciate it too. While option 1 may be a sad reality for many schools, I can think of a number of P5 schools that operate in the black that can and should do this and it's a real shame that they don't. I'm thinking of Texas, Texas A&M, Alabama, Florida, Florida State, and even my own Georgia Bulldogs for sure.

(03-24-2017 11:16 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-18-2017 10:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  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.

Notre Dame picked Option #2 a long time ago.

... and that was the right option and has been all along. Athletics exists to serve academics, so it must justify itself by providing a positive return on investment to the broader university. Even if you want to view it strictly in mercenary terms, think of such money as payment for using the university brand, logo, etc. I mean, what would the Alabama Crimson Tide football team be worth if it could no longer bill itself as being of the University of Alabama? Nothing, that's the only reason it has supporters, as they identify with the school and the state.

There is no upside to having an athletics program that loses money - making sure of course that we account for all benefits, such as alumni donations and student interest - consistently.

(03-23-2017 03:16 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-19-2017 07:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  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.

1) LSU is a horrible example because they are part of a cartel currently dominating college sports...and an elite level of that cartel at that. Their experience isn't the experience of the majority of FBS football members.

2) In addition, if the people of Wyoming, its legislature, and its university board, want to allow their university to subsidize athletics because they see value in that investment...then what business is it of people outside of Wyoming to demand that they not?

Your point (1) is weird, because if anything LSU is even more valuable than what it gets paid by the SEC. If the SEC were to be divided into schools that are worth more than the SEC average payout or less, LSU would surely be on the "more" side, so if anything, LSU is a "victim" of conference socialism not a beneficiary. I suppose you think they aren't getting soaked enough?

Your point (2) is a non-sequitur, because I never proposed taking power away from the people of a state. If the people of a state are dumb enough to cost their university academics, the only true mission of a university, money in order to subsidize athletics, far be it from me to say that can't do that dumb thing. A big part of being free is having the autonomy to do dumb things you want to do.

But it's still a dumb thing.

(03-24-2017 12:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Athletics exists to serve academics, so it must justify itself

Which it can rightly do by being a loss-leader for the brand of the university, itself.

And for 95% of athletic depts in DI, that is what happens.

(03-24-2017 12:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  making sure of course that we account for all benefits, such as alumni donations and student interest

Oh, now you get it.

Well then, almost 100% of athletic depts in DI accomplish this.

Here are some useful data for UConn, since I picked them, due to their high profile with fans here. (I could have picked any one of several dozen examples, results would show similar problems).

Athletics budget deficits are very high, this is not a balanced budget. Only by showing transfers as "income" - which is what I objected to.
http://dailycampus.com/stories/2015/12/1...t-troubles

A much deeper dive into school finances can be found here
https://ctmirror.org/2017/01/10/the-stat...16-charts/

What strikes me as most informative is that state support has almost kept pace with inflation, but school expenditures have risen much faster. Also of note that 55% of salary today (2016-17) is required for staff pension compared to 31% in 2004-05. The problem is pretty obvious, the costs are increasingly tossed on students, but in reality, since most get aid, this is coming form the feds and state as well as student loans. As long as those sources keep increasing the money available, schools will continue to increase spending (businesses do this as well, until the funds dry up). The issue is more a culture of spending without limits than athletics per se. The mindset is in place not to control budgets across America. UConn just has lots of open data to really evaluate the problem if anyone cares to do so, rather than fall back on political party talking points. (And for sports the cabal of writers and athletic department people who financially benefit from excess spending.)

Anyway the point is Athletics is not making money at UConn, not even close to breaking even. You cannot find any G5 level school close to breaking even. (a couple years old, but little has changed: http://www.cbssports.com/college-footbal...partments/)

I limit my focus on public schools, because that is tax payer money. I am a firm believer that private individuals and institutions can spend however they want the market place will determine if it is wise or foolish.

Note: I agree on "total value" evaluation. There is some advertising value, and that should be counted, including for donations. But realistic comparisons need to be made. A school getting $4m in athletic donations, and running a debt of $15m in Athletics is not likely gaining $15m in non-Athletic donations. There may even be some cannibalism going on, where donors are simply apportioning a percentage of their fixed donation amounts to athletics, rather than donating more. So you need comps - just as in real estate - to see the true difference. In California we have a CSU system and a UC system, so we have pretty good comps. It's harder in other states to measure the returns accurately.

(03-24-2017 02:38 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Here are some useful data for UConn, since I picked them, due to their high profile with fans here. (I could have picked any one of several dozen examples, results would show similar problems).

Athletics budget deficits are very high, this is not a balanced budget. Only by showing transfers as "income" - which is what I objected to.
http://dailycampus.com/stories/2015/12/1...t-troubles

A much deeper dive into school finances can be found here
https://ctmirror.org/2017/01/10/the-stat...16-charts/

What strikes me as most informative is that state support has almost kept pace with inflation, but school expenditures have risen much faster. Also of note that 55% of salary today (2016-17) is required for staff pension compared to 31% in 2004-05. The problem is pretty obvious, the costs are increasingly tossed on students, but in reality, since most get aid, this is coming form the feds and state as well as student loans. As long as those sources keep increasing the money available, schools will continue to increase spending (businesses do this as well, until the funds dry up). The issue is more a culture of spending without limits than athletics per se. The mindset is in place not to control budgets across America. UConn just has lots of open data to really evaluate the problem if anyone cares to do so, rather than fall back on political party talking points. (And for sports the cabal of writers and athletic department people who financially benefit from excess spending.)

Anyway the point is Athletics is not making money at UConn, not even close to breaking even. You cannot find any G5 level school close to breaking even. (a couple years old, but little has changed: http://www.cbssports.com/college-footbal...partments/)

I limit my focus on public schools, because that is tax payer money. I am a firm believer that private individuals and institutions can spend however they want the market place will determine if it is wise or foolish.

Note: I agree on "total value" evaluation. There is some advertising value, and that should be counted, including for donations. But realistic comparisons need to be made. A school getting $4m in athletic donations, and running a debt of $15m in Athletics is not likely gaining $15m in non-Athletic donations. There may even be some cannibalism going on, where donors are simply apportioning a percentage of their fixed donation amounts to athletics, rather than donating more. So you need comps - just as in real estate - to see the true difference. In California we have a CSU system and a UC system, so we have pretty good comps. It's harder in other states to measure the returns accurately.

I don't see how ECU has a 15.8 million deficit? I understand how Houston has a 26 million dollar deficit as they've been spending money on facilities at a rapid pace recently. That makes sense. ECU gets better attendance in football than any G5 school other than BYU. I can see why schools like USF and SDSU have high deficits as they rent football stadiums. ECU is bringing in great football revenues in football and owns a 50k OCS which until last year mostly sold out. Basketball attendence isn't too bad either for how bad the team is. Baseball isn't a negative at ECU either as college baseball attendance is better than most at ECU. And ECU is getting more conference money than ever too with the BE legacy payments.... I don't get these numbers...

(03-24-2017 03:37 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 02:38 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Here are some useful data for UConn, since I picked them, due to their high profile with fans here. (I could have picked any one of several dozen examples, results would show similar problems).

Athletics budget deficits are very high, this is not a balanced budget. Only by showing transfers as "income" - which is what I objected to.
http://dailycampus.com/stories/2015/12/1...t-troubles

A much deeper dive into school finances can be found here
https://ctmirror.org/2017/01/10/the-stat...16-charts/

What strikes me as most informative is that state support has almost kept pace with inflation, but school expenditures have risen much faster. Also of note that 55% of salary today (2016-17) is required for staff pension compared to 31% in 2004-05. The problem is pretty obvious, the costs are increasingly tossed on students, but in reality, since most get aid, this is coming form the feds and state as well as student loans. As long as those sources keep increasing the money available, schools will continue to increase spending (businesses do this as well, until the funds dry up). The issue is more a culture of spending without limits than athletics per se. The mindset is in place not to control budgets across America. UConn just has lots of open data to really evaluate the problem if anyone cares to do so, rather than fall back on political party talking points. (And for sports the cabal of writers and athletic department people who financially benefit from excess spending.)

Anyway the point is Athletics is not making money at UConn, not even close to breaking even. You cannot find any G5 level school close to breaking even. (a couple years old, but little has changed: http://www.cbssports.com/college-footbal...partments/)

I limit my focus on public schools, because that is tax payer money. I am a firm believer that private individuals and institutions can spend however they want the market place will determine if it is wise or foolish.

Note: I agree on "total value" evaluation. There is some advertising value, and that should be counted, including for donations. But realistic comparisons need to be made. A school getting $4m in athletic donations, and running a debt of $15m in Athletics is not likely gaining $15m in non-Athletic donations. There may even be some cannibalism going on, where donors are simply apportioning a percentage of their fixed donation amounts to athletics, rather than donating more. So you need comps - just as in real estate - to see the true difference. In California we have a CSU system and a UC system, so we have pretty good comps. It's harder in other states to measure the returns accurately.

I don't see how ECU has a 15.8 million deficit? I understand how Houston has a 26 million dollar deficit as they've been spending money on facilities at a rapid pace recently. That makes sense. ECU gets better attendance in football than any G5 school other than BYU. I can see why schools like USF and SDSU have high deficits as they rent football stadiums. ECU is bringing in great football revenues in football and owns a 50k OCS which until last year mostly sold out. Basketball attendence isn't too bad either for how bad the team is. Baseball isn't a negative at ECU either as college baseball attendance is better than most at ECU. And ECU is getting more conference money than ever too with the BE legacy payments.... I don't get these numbers...

That would represent your student fees/general fund subsidy. They're considering the deficit equal to self generated income minus total expenses. Also this is from 12-13

(03-24-2017 12:28 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 12:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  making sure of course that we account for all benefits, such as alumni donations and student interest

Oh, now you get it.

Well then, almost 100% of athletic depts in DI accomplish this.

For some reason, you have (had) a fantasy in your mind that nobody but yourself understands that the value of college athletics can't be calculated strictly in terms of direct cash expenditures and revenues, but also must include any ancillary benefits, like alumni donations (not earmarked specifically to athletics, but to the broader university) and extra student enrollment caused by interest in athletics. But everyone understands this and always has.

What you fail to grasp is that your assertion that almost 100% of D1 athletic departments cover their costs when those things are factored in is also pure speculative fantasy on your part with no evidence to back it up with.

It's merely a haven for those who want to fund a "big time" athletic program regardless of cost to the academic mission but know they can't just come out and say it, so they fabricate unmeasureable/intangible benefits that they assert are greater than the very real tangible measureable dollar deficits.