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

[Jim]

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

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.

[JDUBBS1280]

I looked through the site and I'm pretty convinced that the numbers reflect some regulatory sweet spot for most programs. There's no way that they could all share such similar financials, particularly given the wide range in attendence and cost of doing business for each school. These are simply the numbers released to the NCAA by each school. They may well reflect the way each college needs to structure its financials for legal/regulatory reasons, but they don't reflect the actual costs and revenues for each program. For example, Wisconsin makes way more money from ticket sales and merchandising than Michigan Tech does. I also expect that Wisconsin spends a lot more to play at the Kohl Center than MTU does to play at the JMac. However, I would guess that both teams have about the same actual expenses per player if you limit it to equipment, travel and game related expenses. As such, I think these numbers do tell us something, just not anything particularly interesting about differences between programs.

And exactly what you said you expected to see is reflected in the numbers. UW generates more recenue than Tech, but also more expenses.

I think the numbers do give a pretty accurate representation of who is making money, who's not, and just how hard it is to maje a D1 hockey program profitable.

[UpNorthHockey]

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

I looked through the site and I'm pretty convinced that the numbers reflect some regulatory sweet spot for most programs. There's no way that they could all share such similar financials, particularly given the wide range in attendence and cost of doing business for each school. These are simply the numbers released to the NCAA by each school. They may well reflect the way each college needs to structure its financials for legal/regulatory reasons, but they don't reflect the actual costs and revenues for each program. For example, Wisconsin makes way more money from ticket sales and merchandising than Michigan Tech does. I also expect that Wisconsin spends a lot more to play at the Kohl Center than MTU does to play at the JMac. However, I would guess that both teams have about the same actual expenses per player if you limit it to equipment, travel and game related expenses. As such, I think these numbers do tell us something, just not anything particularly interesting about differences between programs.

[FlagDUDE08]

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

We are expected to believe that hockey conferences sign contracts with T.V. broadcasters just for handwriting practice, not because there is money involved? Or that college hockey programs donate to commercial television the rights to use their facilities and broadcast their games? F.D. does not deign to share the source of his certainty about such incredible conclusions. He offers only his say-so. Until he documents his claim their most likely source is voices in his head.

Bear Red does not deign to share the source of his certainty about such incredible conclusions. He offers only his say-so. Until he documents his claim (gic) their most likely source is voices in his head.

[Osorojo]

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

Nice trick to put the burden of proof on the one who claims something never happens.

We are expected to believe that hockey conferences sign contracts with T.V. broadcasters just for handwriting practice, not because there is money involved? Or that college hockey programs donate to commercial television the rights to use their facilities and broadcast their games? F.D. does not deign to share the source of his certainty about such incredible conclusions. He offers only his say-so. Until he documents his claim their most likely source is voices in his head.

[UAHStatman]

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

I can only speak from what I've seen from UAH, from the now-infamous athletics review last summer that was done to fit Dr. Portera's decision to cut hockey. The bulk of the "revenue" from the 2010-11 report for hockey was "direct institutional support" -- the money from the university to the hockey program to make up the difference between revenues and expenditures. I would at least consider that all the other schools that are showing as "even" are doing the same thing -- counting what the school is kicking as "revenue" to the hockey program.

Incidentally, one of the conditions for UAH to keep hockey (besides securing a conference spot) is that the university will supply $650,000 toward the program -- still a decent amount but less than what the school supplied in the past. Because this is a flat rate and no longer based on how much the hockey program spends, I would think UAH will no longer be shown as "break even."

[JDUBBS1280]

Why do so many doctors prescribe antibiotics for respiratory infections that are viral in nature? Because doing so may make the patient feel like they are doing SOMEthing. So the government requires these numbers to be submitted so we all think that someone is minding the store and all of the various laws of the land (and each of them has at least someone interested in them) are being enforced. I'm sorry, but I think if you or anyone else believes these numbers have any basis in the reality of the money being spent on college athletics, you are naive.

You're certainly entitled to think it's just a facade, but I'm more inclined to think it's a best effort attempt to track this stuff. And I think the numbers are much closer to reality than you want to believe.

[burd]

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

No T.V. money ever gets to any college hockey program through any channel? Prove it, or hush your mouth.

Nice trick to put the burden of proof on the one who claims something never happens.

[Osorojo]

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

That money doesn't go to the schools, DuMass.

No T.V. money ever gets to any college hockey program through any channel? Prove it, or hush your mouth.

[IrishHockeyFan]

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

Oh, I agree. There has to be some creative accounting going on. That said, i find it hard to believe the numbers reported are completely unrespresentative of the truth either. I think the numbers are much closer to being accurate than they are to being not. Otherwise, why even report them? It's supposed to give us an indication of just how much is being spent on men's and women's athletics, and how much they make. And to be completely honest, I'm not all that surprised by the numbers. Hockey is a tough sport to make money on.

Why do so many doctors prescribe antibiotics for respiratory infections that are viral in nature? Because doing so may make the patient feel like they are doing SOMEthing. So the government requires these numbers to be submitted so we all think that someone is minding the store and all of the various laws of the land (and each of them has at least someone interested in them) are being enforced. I'm sorry, but I think if you or anyone else believes these numbers have any basis in the reality of the money being spent on college athletics, you are naive.

[KnowItAll]

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

I don't trust those numbers.

(1) The revenue numbers might be reasonably accurate (although I suspect that each school has a different way of calculating revenues), but the expenses are all over the place. I simply don't buy the idea that Wisconsin spends more than twice as much on its hockey program as Minnesota. Why? Where are those 2 million dollars being spent in Madison that aren't being spent in Minneapolis?

(2) If even one school had exactly the same revenue and expenses, it would be an amazing coincidence. However, if you look at the chart, 23 of the 56 schools list revenues and expenses the same down to the last dollar! How did BC know to spend exactly $3,702,040 on their hockey program? Amazing how they nailed that guess...too bad Denver went $1 over!

The numbers that schools report are going to be self-serving, and there is no way to ensure that they are calculated in the same way (or even a remotely similar way).

so these are dam lies?
or statistics? or worse yet?

[dggoddard]

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

Its an interesting debate, but obviously the numbers on both sides of the spreadsheet can be massaged.

I once spoke to an NHL scout who asked me what DU spent on hockey. I told him, "A million or two" and he almost fell out of his chair laughing. He knew what major junior teams were spending, obviously DU had better facilities, traveled by plane and had schollies to name just a few perks.

How do you account for the coach's secretary, the director of hockey operations, possible rent on the arena, DU spends $500,000 converting Magness from hockey to basketball, the 18 scholarships are worth $900,000, $300,000 on travel, $500,000 on coaches salaries, zambonis, ice time and electrical.

On the revenue side, parking on game nights, advertising in the arena, merchandise sales. DU probably sells a million bucks worth of beer & liquor, most schools don't have that revenue stream.

That being said, $2.3 million is probably an accurate number for DU's ticket sales.

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Perhaps administrations or student unions are providing regular monetary amounts towards the program, and they are including that in the revenue. With the 23 schools that come out dead even, perhaps there's a clause to say that the school will provide the amount needed to get back to even, or take the money to get to even. A school is a non-profit organization, after all.

[JDUBBS1280]

What is needed to or leagally obligated to report does not make it true numbers. Anybody who runs a business will tell you that. I would bet a lot of money Schools count scholarship tution against their budget, but that is really double dipping or partial double dipping. Schools figure out tution cost by how much tution money they expect to collect. That means the students paying tution are actually paying a portion of the student who is not payings tution. Now obviously scholarship grants and state funding are figured in here, but the reality is a scholarship hockey player does not cost the school as much as they claim.

Oh, I agree. There has to be some creative accounting going on. That said, i find it hard to believe the numbers reported are completely unrespresentative of the truth either. I think the numbers are much closer to being accurate than they are to being not. Otherwise, why even report them? It's supposed to give us an indication of just how much is being spent on men's and women's athletics, and how much they make. And to be completely honest, I'm not all that surprised by the numbers. Hockey is a tough sport to make money on.

[Squarebanks]

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

I have a hard time believing UAF is the second-highest revenue generator in the CCHA.