Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NCAA Hockey - Who's Making $$$, Who's Not

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MichFan
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey - Who's Making $$$, Who's Not

    I have a number of thoughts about these numbers...

    1. I suspect that revenues are fairly accurate, but as others pointed out, there has to be some creative accounting going on with the expenditures.

    2. I wonder how much of the difference is how scholarships are accounted. At Michigan, the athletic department is self supporting and literally pays the tuition of scholarship athletes from its own accounts into the school's general accounts. I suspect that this works very differently from school to school.

    3. Add me to the list of people wondering how Minnesota's expenditures could be so much less than, say, Wisconsin's or Michigan's.

    4. If you look at future conference alignment, the B1G has the top 3 schools by revenue (Minn/Wisc/Mich), and almost in much in revenue with 5 schools as HE or the NCHC with 11 and 8, respectively. As someone who is NOT a fan of realignment, I think the B1G's money dominance will be bad for college hockey.

    5. I wonder if Michigan's administration is looking at Minny and Wisconsin ahead of it in revenue and wondering if we need a bigger rink to catch up. I love Yost as much as any other Wolverine, but Michigan has the fan interest to support another 3,000-4,000 seats, and you're not getting that into Yost. Of course, with all our football money, we don't need hockey to be hugely profitable, but David Brandon likes to make money however he can. Obviously, any extended discussion of this belongs in a separate thread.

    6. I knew that crowds at Munn have fallen off in the last decade, but I was shocked to see that Sparty's revenue is less than half of Michigan's.

    7. How is UConn going to make it in Hockey East when its revenues are the lowest in the country?

    8. Look at the future WCHA's revenues vs. the NCHC's and it leaves the impression that the NCHC was taking money into account as much as the on-ice product when it picked its members.

    9. I was surprised to see Cornell behind RPI, Clarkson, and Colgate in revenues. With that program's success and its rich and loyal alumni, not to mention the demand on campus for tickets to Lynah, I expected Cornell to be first in the ECAC easily.

    10. Ferris State seems to be doing well with small revenues and expenditures, so maybe money is overrated!

    Leave a comment:


  • IrishHockeyFan
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey - Who's Making $$$, Who's Not

    Originally posted by JDUBBS1280 View Post
    Can you post a source for your #'s. i'd be interested in looking at them.
    I asked the people I have contact with if the numbers reported as revenue had any basis in reality. I was told that they reflected ticket revenue for games at the Joyce Center (3 of the 21 "home games" we had in that season were played either in Fort Wayne or at the Sears Centre in suburban Chicago). FWIW my refusal to source this information specifically and completely is something that may make some doubt their authenticity. I understand that. I don't care. Contacts dry up sometimes if you reveal sources when they say not to. As a private institution (even if a non-profit) Notre Dame is required to account for publicly very different revenues and expenses than a public university, which is supported beyond what students pay out-of-pocket primarily by tax-payers. Title IX requirements need to be complied with of course, and other things as well. This can be done while keeping many numbers out of the public eye.

    Leave a comment:


  • JDUBBS1280
    replied
    Originally posted by IrishHockeyFan View Post
    Sour grapes? You are really incredible. I couldn't care less about the numbers included in your original post, and it has nothing to do with how profitable (if at all) Notre Dame's hockey program is. The fact is, my university makes enough money on their football program that if they choose to, funding programs via that revenue would be sufficient now and as far into the future as matters.

    I already posted what the numbers meant as far as Notre Dame is concerned and why that means the information is essentially worthless. I've successfully debunked the numbers attributed to Notre Dame and the only logical inference that can be made by anyone is the one many of us (me included) are making. You choose (as you always do) to find some way to take this information and turn it into how all things Minnesota are the tops. I think Boston College disagrees with you as far as the way most of us look at what's important regarding our teams, you know winning the most recent championship and doing it with class while following the rules, but maybe that's just the rest of us, I don't know.
    Can you post a source for your #'s. i'd be interested in looking at them.

    Leave a comment:


  • IrishHockeyFan
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey - Who's Making $$$, Who's Not

    Originally posted by burd View Post
    Can anyone tell if debt service is included in the numbers? Often the biggest expense a business has, and for schools with newer rinks, that number would be significant, though I suspect many schools have foundations set up for this kind of overhead expense.
    No, that number would be unknown based on the information provided. Public and private institutions may also have differing accounting rules for that as well. Yet another reason why this information is fairly meaningless.

    Leave a comment:


  • IrishHockeyFan
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey - Who's Making $$$, Who's Not

    Originally posted by JDUBBS1280 View Post

    Lots of sour grapes because people are finding out that their programs aren't nearly as successful financially as they thought they were.

    If you think the numbers aren't accurate for the program you follow, then do your due diligence and see if you can find a source that disputes the numbers listed here.

    Sour grapes? You are really incredible. I couldn't care less about the numbers included in your original post, and it has nothing to do with how profitable (if at all) Notre Dame's hockey program is. The fact is, my university makes enough money on their football program that if they choose to, funding programs via that revenue would be sufficient now and as far into the future as matters.

    I already posted what the numbers meant as far as Notre Dame is concerned and why that means the information is essentially worthless. I've successfully debunked the numbers attributed to Notre Dame and the only logical inference that can be made by anyone is the one many of us (me included) are making. You choose (as you always do) to find some way to take this information and turn it into how all things Minnesota are the tops. I think Boston College disagrees with you as far as the way most of us look at what's important regarding our teams, you know winning the most recent championship and doing it with class while following the rules, but maybe that's just the rest of us, I don't know.
    Last edited by IrishHockeyFan; 04-15-2012, 09:47 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Slap Shot
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey - Who's Making $$$, Who's Not

    Mecca is already slated for updates.

    Leave a comment:


  • JDUBBS1280
    replied
    Originally posted by Alton View Post
    Yes, if I were a Minnesota fan I would, like you, be extremely upset with those numbers. To find out that despite having the most revenue of any program in the country, the athletic department is so cheap that they are only #16 in the nation and #6 in the WCHA in expenditures on the hockey program! I'm not surprised that you want to emphasize these numbers, presumably to put some pressure on your athletic department about how shabbily they treat their hockey team.

    Fight the good fight.
    I didn't put this all together. Jupiter at GopherPuckLive did.

    And you're right. The Gophers probably could spend a little more on hockey. Mariucci is getting older and needs updates (especially video board and sound system).

    Problem has been, they just built a new football stadiumand Tubby is demanding a new practice facility for bouncy ball. I heard the updates for mariucci are coming soon though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Alton
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey - Who's Making $$$, Who's Not

    Originally posted by JDUBBS1280 View Post
    Really, because the revenue and expenses listed for Minnesota are pretty close to the actual ones.

    Lots of sour grapes because people are finding out that their programs aren't nearly as successful financially as they thought they were.
    Yes, if I were a Minnesota fan I would, like you, be extremely upset with those numbers. To find out that despite having the most revenue of any program in the country, the athletic department is so cheap that they are only #16 in the nation and #6 in the WCHA in expenditures on the hockey program! I'm not surprised that you want to emphasize these numbers, presumably to put some pressure on your athletic department about how shabbily they treat their hockey team.

    Fight the good fight.

    Leave a comment:


  • burd
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey - Who's Making $$$, Who's Not

    Can anyone tell if debt service is included in the numbers? Often the biggest expense a business has, and for schools with newer rinks, that number would be significant, though I suspect many schools have foundations set up for this kind of overhead expense.

    Leave a comment:


  • JDUBBS1280
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey - Who's Making $$$, Who's Not

    Looking at the numbers, it seems like the revenue numbers are more accurate than the expenses. Which makes sense because there are multiple ways you can report expenses and all are accurate. For instance, with Wisconsin, there are obviously costs associated with changing the Kohl Center from basketball to hockey or vice versa. Are they reporting all of those expenses as hockey expenses, basketball expenses, or a combo of both?

    Revenues look pretty accurate IMO.

    Leave a comment:


  • JDUBBS1280
    replied
    Originally posted by cetihcra View Post
    Finally somebody gets it.

    To add to this, the reason these numbers are developed and published is not to compare programs to each other, but merely to compare the expenditures within an athletic program to itself, i.e., to compare the proportion of funds dedicated to women's teams to those dedicated to men's teams to ensure title ix compliance.

    These numbers are nearly useless in determining who's making money and who's not, because they aren't designed to make that comparison...it's apples, to oranges, to grapes, to lemons, to 54 other fruits.

    r
    Really, because the revenue and expenses listed for Minnesota are pretty close to the actual ones.

    Lots of sour grapes because people are finding out that their programs aren't nearly as successful financially as they thought they were.

    If you think the numbers aren't accurate for the program you follow, then do your due diligence and see if you can find a source that disputes the numbers listed here.

    Leave a comment:


  • cetihcra
    replied
    Originally posted by Wildpantswilly View Post
    These numbers are a total joke, and are virtually useless in nature.

    Firstly, in accounting, you don't just throw up round numbers and hope no one notices. You also will never see an income statement with just "revenues" and "expenses", as it is completely - COMPLETELY - useless.

    Furthermore, while the revenues may be somewhat accurate for direct revenue (accruable as others mentioned), I can say with near certainty that the costs are not.

    Why is this?

    Because the purpose of these numbers has nothing to do with accurately representing these numbers. The inherent function of academia, is to criticize every department but your own (I work in academia..), and to try and acquire new forms of revenue for your department, while avoiding cuts. With roughly half of these programs showing "break-even" type numbers, they are deflecting any criticism from academic areas that money is being spent on athletics that is being lost. Academics tend to hate athletics spending more so than plagiarism, wikipedia references, and criticism of their research area.

    By showing the numbers as they are, I suspect that the universities are more so attempting to deflect criticism for the amount of money they are spending, than accurately depicting their actual financial state. With the nature of cost allocation, it is easy to "prove" the expense numbers, just by being somewhat creative. (I could get deeper into this, but don't want to put anyone to sleep.)

    The point of your post that bothered me was the assertion that the new WCHA is going to suck from a "profit" standpoint.

    A fundamental question needs to be asked: Is the purpose of college hockey programs, or universities for that matter to provide a profit? In the case of the new WCHA teams, that question is certainly "no". These schools are division-2 in nature, and are using these programs for their peripheral benefits, not their financial benefits.

    For example, according to the numbers, Ferris State lost $13k this year. But, if you take into account the attention, press, and expanded brand they acquired by having a good year, you could describe the function of the team as much more one of marketing and promotion, than simply revenues and expenses applied to the athletic department.

    Kudos to you for looking into numbers, but you stopped at the point of organizing them, and didn't really look into them deeper and find out some of the more interesting things they could yield; for example, looking deeper into why ND numbers were so bad, or analyzing how average attendance effects revenues, which would be a much better assessment of how accurate the numbers are (as we have an idea of ticket prices).

    Sorry for the long post. This is both "business" and "hockey", two of the nerd realms I occupy on a daily basis.

    Finally somebody gets it.

    To add to this, the reason these numbers are developed and published is not to compare programs to each other, but merely to compare the expenditures within an athletic program to itself, i.e., to compare the proportion of funds dedicated to women's teams to those dedicated to men's teams to ensure title ix compliance.

    These numbers are nearly useless in determining who's making money and who's not, because they aren't designed to make that comparison...it's apples, to oranges, to grapes, to lemons, to 54 other fruits.

    r

    Leave a comment:


  • Wildpantswilly
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey - Who's Making $$$, Who's Not

    These numbers are a total joke, and are virtually useless in nature.

    Firstly, in accounting, you don't just throw up round numbers and hope no one notices. You also will never see an income statement with just "revenues" and "expenses", as it is completely - COMPLETELY - useless.

    Furthermore, while the revenues may be somewhat accurate for direct revenue (accruable as others mentioned), I can say with near certainty that the costs are not.

    Why is this?

    Because the purpose of these numbers has nothing to do with accurately representing these numbers. The inherent function of academia, is to criticize every department but your own (I work in academia..), and to try and acquire new forms of revenue for your department, while avoiding cuts. With roughly half of these programs showing "break-even" type numbers, they are deflecting any criticism from academic areas that money is being spent on athletics that is being lost. Academics tend to hate athletics spending more so than plagiarism, wikipedia references, and criticism of their research area.

    By showing the numbers as they are, I suspect that the universities are more so attempting to deflect criticism for the amount of money they are spending, than accurately depicting their actual financial state. With the nature of cost allocation, it is easy to "prove" the expense numbers, just by being somewhat creative. (I could get deeper into this, but don't want to put anyone to sleep.)

    The point of your post that bothered me was the assertion that the new WCHA is going to suck from a "profit" standpoint.

    A fundamental question needs to be asked: Is the purpose of college hockey programs, or universities for that matter to provide a profit? In the case of the new WCHA teams, that question is certainly "no". These schools are division-2 in nature, and are using these programs for their peripheral benefits, not their financial benefits.

    For example, according to the numbers, Ferris State lost $13k this year. But, if you take into account the attention, press, and expanded brand they acquired by having a good year, you could describe the function of the team as much more one of marketing and promotion, than simply revenues and expenses applied to the athletic department.

    Kudos to you for looking into numbers, but you stopped at the point of organizing them, and didn't really look into them deeper and find out some of the more interesting things they could yield; for example, looking deeper into why ND numbers were so bad, or analyzing how average attendance effects revenues, which would be a much better assessment of how accurate the numbers are (as we have an idea of ticket prices).

    Sorry for the long post. This is both "business" and "hockey", two of the nerd realms I occupy on a daily basis.

    Leave a comment:


  • scsutommyboy
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey - Who's Making $$$, Who's Not

    Originally posted by Jim View Post
    I think these numbers probably give a general overview of how things line up, but to a degree the accounting isn't the same from school to school. Just as a simple example, UCONN sponsorships don't show up as "program" income, but as Athletic Department general income. Same with memorabilia. So if AT&T donates 10,000 to sponsor UCONN Hockey, it is technically income to the athletic development fund, not UCONN Hockey. Other schools have a different method of treating these sponsorships and at some others, the same sponsorship donation would show up as income to the hockey program. Schools also ahve different ways of treating direct school support. Some places treat the University contribution as income, others have a different way of booking it. So it might be possible for two schools to have similar income and expense totals, but one is made up of tickets, tv, and donations, while the other is student fees and university contributions. I owuld suggest that those are very different types of programs. So unless you dig deeper into the specifics, it is difficult to really compare programs. A similar thing can happen on the expense side, though it isn't usually as big a difference nor as common. But occassionally schools include operating costs of certain facilities, the rink is the best example, as a program cost (or maybe split it between mens and womens programs). others don't put those costs to a specific program on the theory that it is a university facility just as the Physics building is.
    Well said! that is exactly what i was thinking.

    Leave a comment:


  • JDUBBS1280
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey - Who's Making $$$, Who's Not

    I agree Jim. I think it's a "best effort" approach to comparing the revenues and expenses of programs at different schools who probably have different accounting practices. I think it gives us a general ida of who's making money, who isn't, who needs to work on generating new revenue streams, who needs to work on minimizing expenses, etc...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X