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

[IrishHockeyFan]

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

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.

[IrishHockeyFan]

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.

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.

[JDUBBS1280]

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.

[IrishHockeyFan]

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

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.

[MichFan]

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!

[4four4]

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

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.

Minnesota's recruiting travel and everyday travel to other arena's is lower than anybody else in the conference. IMO, that is the difference between them and everybody else.

[dggoddard]

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

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).

That's exactly what I suspected DU's revenue numbers suggested. To not count parking, alcohol sales, concessions & merchandise, which as we all know, would double the revenue easily.

[FlagDUDE08]

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

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.

I'm REALLY surprised about Colgate. I wonder if they included their charity event (Goals for Good), and then matched it as an expenditure?

One thing to also consider is that RPI gets revenue from the Student Union's activity fee for all of its sports programs.

[Tiggsy]

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

Minnesota's recruiting travel and everyday travel to other arena's is lower than anybody else in the conference. IMO, that is the difference between them and everybody else.

That's a good point I never even thought of. A large percentage of recruiting trips for MN are less than 30 minutes from campus. Some trips may not even count because the coaches are already at the games watching their own kids play. Not too many other places can likely say that.

I'm REALLY surprised about Colgate....

Me too, especially since 4 out of 5 dentists recoment Colgate. Wait, that's Trident. Nevermind.

[SCSU Euro]

I'm REALLY surprised about Colgate. I wonder if they included their charity event (Goals for Good), and then matched it as an expenditure?

One thing to also consider is that RPI gets revenue from the Student Union's activity fee for all of its sports programs.

SCSU does the same. For a small fee every student is a season ticket holder whether they like it (or know it) or not

[aparch]

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.

I'm not a fan of re-alignment either, but it is what it is.

Even with the B1G declaring such a disproportionate revenue, they still have to play by the same rules as NMU, MTU or BGSU: only 20 players (21 if they let the third string backup dress for fun) can dress per night. 18 skaters only.

If the Michigans and Minnesotas want to p!ss away 18 full scholarships, or up to 30 partial scholarships while having a stockpile of 30+ players, good for them. Because the blue-chips were always going to go to those schools. The second/third string guys who may have to red-shirt and sit out a few years can still attend the "lesser" Div. 1 schools and get immediate ice time, and thus immediately make an impact on NHL scouts.

It's a little tough to impress scouts with how well you get nachos during the game while sitting out your freshman and sophomore years.

[FreshFish]

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

I don't trust those numbers.

The footnotes might explain it; perhaps some schools allocate expenses across all uses of the rink (at my college we used to be able to skate on the team's rink during "free skate" hours) while others may not; some schools might have debt service to pay off the cost of rink construction while others have rinks that are paid for; others might be using depreciation as a bookkeeping expense even though it is not a cash outlay, etc.

[scsutommyboy]

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

I'm not a fan of re-alignment either, but it is what it is.

Even with the B1G declaring such a disproportionate revenue, they still have to play by the same rules as NMU, MTU or BGSU: only 20 players (21 if they let the third string backup dress for fun) can dress per night. 18 skaters only.

If the Michigans and Minnesotas want to p!ss away 18 full scholarships, or up to 30 partial scholarships while having a stockpile of 30+ players, good for them. Because the blue-chips were always going to go to those schools. The second/third string guys who may have to red-shirt and sit out a few years can still attend the "lesser" Div. 1 schools and get immediate ice time, and thus immediately make an impact on NHL scouts.

It's a little tough to impress scouts with how well you get nachos during the game while sitting out your freshman and sophomore years.

This why the Ferris State's can do so well. There are less than 60 D1 schools and as long as the college game keeps bringing in more talent than the BIG's can take other schools are going to keep making an impact. Those schools can't do it every year, but as long as they can every once in a while things won't be much different than they are now.

[Osorojo]

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

This discussion of information found at ope.ed.gov/athletics is much more enlightening than a thread from a while ago about the same source of information. That thread was hijacked by cheese-dip experts - heavy on the "dip." Sale fromage from the provinces.

[mnstate0fhockey]

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

Revenues look accurate to me. The expenditures not so much.