Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NCAA Hockey Financials

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

  • #16
    Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

    Originally posted by ChargerPowerPlay View Post
    I would need some step-by-step directions and/or hand holding but I'm willing to request the information for you.

    CPP
    Thank you for the offer. Send me an email with yours and I will send you a copy of the form I was sent and who to email it to.

    Sean
    Women's Hockey East Champions 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2010
    Men's NCAA Champions 2009, 1995, 1978, 1972, 1971

    BU Hockey Games
    BU Hockey highlights and extras
    NCAA Hockey Financials
    Women's Division I Longest Hockey Games

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

      Great work! A fascinating read. I suspect that some of these numbers will be a real eye opener for a whole lot of people.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

        Originally posted by Sean Pickett View Post
        TBTW, I have also noticed that despite the 18 scholarship limit 16 schools have reported awarding more than 18 scholarships 32 times. Some of the over limit aid is clearly identified as exhausted eligibility or medical aid, but many of the reports list athletic aid given above the 18 limit (Wisconsin reported 19.03 in aid in 2016 and Bowling Green reported 19.2 in aid in 2017).
        UW needs that many to account for the 40 recruits per class they have.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Overall vs Earned Profit/Loss

          Originally posted by Sean Pickett View Post
          I also compiled 7 years worth of financials because I realized it was very tough to understand and compare numbers when looking at just one year. For example, in 2013 Wisconsin reported $8.3 and $7.1 million in donations to men's and women's hockey, over three times more than the next closest year. If you only saw that report you might think that they received that amount in donations every year. Looking at expenses they also reported over $9 million for men's and women's in direct facilities expenditures, again over three times more than the next closest year. Based on these numbers I think that the contributions were for the purpose of paying down the debt on LeBahn and Kohl Arenas. When looking at 7 years of financials you can see that while Wisconsin has been receiving a fair amount in the way of donations for the hockey teams, it is usually far less (and also a much smaller percentage of all donations to athletics). The same goes for facilities debt/maintenance costs.
          Yes, that year was an anomaly, but it was also used by an economics professor to talk about how horribly UW exploited Hilary Knight LINK

          Comment


          • #20
            Value of Players

            I'm close to updating my finacial spreadsheet with 2017 and 2018 numbers, I'm just waiting on Minnesota State to send me their reports. In the meantime I spent a bit of time on my response to Professor Berri's article.

            Originally posted by KaMiGo View Post
            Yes, that year was an anomaly, but it was also used by an economics professor to talk about how horribly UW exploited Hilary Knight LINK
            Thanks for the link, it was an interesting article. However, I really expect better from a professor of economics. My first issue is that he apparently didn’t bother to actually look at all the information available in the EADA reports. Limited as they are he should have noticed that for 22 schools the revenue for women’s hockey equaled the expenses, for 9 schools expenses exceed revenue (8 by more than $300,000), and for just 6 schools revenue exceed expenses (one by just a dollar, so really it can be counted with the 22 schools that balanced the books). Furthermore, looking at EADA reported revenue for all the schools together shows that Minnesota reported just $389,769 for 2016(-17), less than every school except Ohio State. That one of the most successful programs generated less revenue than 34 other programs, including Sacred Heart and Holy Cross, is cause for taking a closer look and doing further research. If he had done so he should have noticed that on the EADA reports team revenues usually equal team expenses for the non-revenue sports. The Chronicle of Higher Education’s article on college sports clearly considered student fees, direct local, state and federal government support, and direct and indirect institutional support all forms of subsidies to athletic departments. I have followed that in my earned revenue and earned profit/loss columns, in which those revenue categories are subtracted from the reported overall revenues for each school to determine the true earned revenues for each team each year. Using this a baseline results in a very different numbers.

            And while understandable, he used the wrong year of data for the value of the players as seniors. The EADA custom reports use when the school year starts (i.e., for the 2011-12 school year the EADA custom reports are all identified as 2011). That means that the revenue number he used to calculate what each player mentioned should have received was for the year after they graduated, except those that graduated in 2017 (which he accidentally got correct).

            He also decided that every player on the U.S. national team was the best player on her NCAA team her senior year. So he has 3 BC players all the best for 2017 and 2 the best for 2015, 3 Minnesota players the best for 2017 and 2 the best for 2016, while North Dakota has 2 the best for 2013. Usually only one can be the best on her team in a given year and if all were truly equal then they should be using a lower multiplier. Furthermore, he equates the highest paid NHL player with the best NHL player, which is certainly open to debate. I also disagree with his valuation of each player as the best on her school team based on her being on her country’s Olympic team.

            While I believe that his valuation method is flawed, I will use it so I can do a direct comparison using the revenue numbers reported to the NCAA. Of the 23 players identified in the article, 16 played for public schools for which the actual NCAA financial reports are available. These reports clearly show that the EADA reported revenue is usually equal to the total expenses for each team and that the actual reported revenue was either much lower or include the previously mentioned subsidies. I have created a spreadsheet that shows all 23 players, the worth Professor Berri placed on them, their correct EADA worth and for those that played for public schools, their NCAA revenue and earned revenue worth. I have also included the average and maximum value of each public schools scholarships and average meals allowance, plus the variance between their EADA worth, NCAA revenue and earned revenue worth and what they likely received in scholarships and meal allowances. For the 7 that played for private schools I have estimated what they likely received in scholarships.

            I also have two lines for both Hillary Knight and Brianna Decker since for their senior seasons Wisconsin reported extremely large contribution amounts to women’s hockey. A close look at their expenses seems to indicate that most of these contributions were used to pay down the debt on LeBahn Arena and should probably not be included as part of their earned revenue amount for either season. Therefore, I have only counted $144,000 in contributions for each year (the average for the other 7 years for which I have data) for those two years to reflect that. If you include the total contributions then you can claim that both were horribly exploited by Wisconsin, but if you exclude them then both players ended up receiving slightly more in scholarships than they were worth.

            In the article Professor Berri states that for 2015-16 (actually 2016-17) if the 36 (actually 37; it appears he missed Merrimack) schools gave 50% of their revenue to the players that would have been $21.7 million divided among 845 players, for an average of $25,682. Including Merrimack the amount would have been $22.5 million divided among 870 players, for an average of $25,853. When using the NCAA revenue numbers for the 13 public schools and the EADA revenue numbers for the 24 private schools 50% of reported revenue would have been $20.46 million divided among 870 players, for an average of $23,518. Yet using the actual scholarships and meal allowance amounts for the 13 public schools and the estimated scholarship amounts for the 24 private schools the players received about $22.845 million divided among 870 players, for an average of $26,259. However the earned revenue of the 13 public schools was just $3.2 million, 50% of which was just $ 1.6 million divided among the 312 players for an average of $5,106. That is far less than the $9.2 million the schools gave out to 312 players in scholarships and meal allowances, an average of $29,509.

            However, the article really focused on the top players, not the bottom players. Taking a look at the specific examples it gives, I'll start with Jocelyne Lamoureux-Davidson. The article states that she would have been paid $112,961 by North Dakota in 2013. However, using the NCAA report and not the EADA shows a startling difference. North Dakota reported to the NCAA that its women's hockey team generated $99,931 in revenue in 2013. The players would receive 50% of that revenue if the school followed the NHL model. So the players would have received $49,965.5 in revenue. The NCAA reported there were 26 participants on the team. So each member would — on average — be paid $1,921.75‬. As the best player, though, Lamoureux-Davidson would be paid 4.87 times that amount. That works out to $9,365, or about half the cost of attending North Dakota for one year (UND’s 2013 NCAA report shows the school gave out $395,327 in aid for 20.55 scholarship equivalencies, an average of $19,237 per full scholarship). If the amount was split equally among all 26 players it would be an average of $15,205, but it was actually only split among 23 players, an average of $17,188. However, it is likely Lamoureux-Davidson received the full scholarship amount of $19,237. In sum, Lamoureux-Davidson was not exploited by North Dakota in 2013. BTW, Profesor Berri doesn’t bring up why, if women’s hockey is so profitable, North Dakota dropped the sport to save money.

            If we follow those same steps for each member of Team USA, here is what each player would have been paid had her school followed the NHL approach in her last year in school:
            Hilary Knight – excluding LeBahn contribution (Wisconsin, 2012): $35,136
            Meghan Duggan (Wisconsin, 2011): $26,932
            Kendall Coyne (Northeastern, 2016): $?
            Megan Keller (Boston College, 2017): $?
            Cayla Barnes (Boston College, 2017): $?
            Kali Flanagan (Boston College, 2017): $?
            Alex Carpenter (Boston College, 2015): $?
            Emily Pfalzer (Boston College, 2015): $?
            Maddie Rooney (Minnesota-Duluth, 2017): $29,393
            Amanda Pelkey (Vermont, 2015): $3,677
            Monique Lamoureux-Morando (North Dakota: 2013): $9,365
            Nicole Hensley (Lindenwood, 2017): $?
            Alex Rigsby (Wisconsin, 2014): $43,502
            Brianna Decker – excluding LeBahn contribution (Wisconsin, 2013): $31,297
            Megan Bozek (Minnesota, 2013): $68,583
            Kacey Bellamy (New Hampshire, 2009): $19,099
            Gigi Marvin (Minnesota, 2009): $16,100
            Amanda Kessel (Minnesota, 2016): $34,171
            Hannah Brandt (Minnesota, 2016): $34,171
            Dani Cameranesi (Minnesota, 2017): $36,528
            Lee Stecklein (Minnesota, 2017): $36,528
            Kelly Pannek (Minnesota, 2017): $36,528

            The average pay to these women who played for public schools — if their schools followed the NHL model — would be $29,398. The average scholarship and meal allowance these women did receive was $31,937 and the minimum average scholarship and meal allowance these women received when the estimated scholarship values for the 7 private schools is factored in was $39,553.

            All of this tells us that a free market, or a market where schools were free to pay their athletes whatever they like, wouldn't just result in higher pay for men's basketball players and football players. Either non-revenue sports would be dropped, or the players would be expected to pay for most or all of their education. And that would lead to fewer opportunities for women and men to participate in sports while in college.

            Sean
            Last edited by Sean Pickett; 10-29-2019, 06:34 AM.
            Women's Hockey East Champions 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2010
            Men's NCAA Champions 2009, 1995, 1978, 1972, 1971

            BU Hockey Games
            BU Hockey highlights and extras
            NCAA Hockey Financials
            Women's Division I Longest Hockey Games

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Value of Players

              Originally posted by Sean Pickett View Post
              ...I really expect better from a professor of economics. My first issue is that he apparently didn’t bother to actually look at all the information available in the EADA reports...Using this [all the information available]...results in a very different numbers...
              No surprises here. Cherrypicking/manipulating/interpreting data to support pre-determined conclusions and/or personal agendas is commonplace, especially in academia.
              "Through the years, we ever will acclaim........"

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Value of Players

                Originally posted by Split-N View Post
                No surprises here. Cherrypicking/manipulating/interpreting data to support pre-determined conclusions and/or personal agendas is commonplace, especially in academia.
                and in academia, the only opinion that matters is that of other professors, consequently a rebuttal by anyone else is invalid
                but even worse, there was nobody at Forbes that decided to look into whether the data used was valid to arrive at the conclusion, which seems to be common these days
                just publish/broadcast what anybody gives you, especially if it will grab consumers attention
                most people would assume Forbes is a good source for financial information, but it seems fake news is everywhere, and Forbes is no better than the National Enquirer
                I guess these days you have to assume what you see and read is fake unless you can prove otherwise

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Value of Players

                  Originally posted by pokechecker View Post
                  and in academia, the only opinion that matters is that of other professors, consequently a rebuttal by anyone else is invalid but even worse, there was nobody at Forbes that decided to look into whether the data used was valid to arrive at the conclusion, which seems to be common these days just publish/broadcast what anybody gives you, especially if it will grab consumers attention most people would assume Forbes is a good source for financial information, but it seems fake news is everywhere, and Forbes is no better than the National Enquirer I guess these days you have to assume what you see and read is fake unless you can prove otherwise
                  Yes, I was disappointed to see the article was published by Forbes. It was also not proof-read, or not proof-read by someone with a knowledge of women's hockey, as Professor Berri states "Jocelyne Lamoureux-Davidson — who scored the decisive goal in the gold medal game against Team USA."

                  Originally posted by Split-N View Post
                  No surprises here. Cherrypicking/manipulating/interpreting data to support pre-determined conclusions and/or personal agendas is commonplace, especially in academia.
                  Yes, my father always liked to use the phrase, “There are lies, d-a-m-n lies and statistics.”

                  After I posted I thought more about the professor using the multiplier of the highest paid NHL player vs the average NHL salary and decided to look into it more. The 2019-20 salaries listed on Hockey-Reference.com show a new highest paid player, Mitch Marner, at $16 million and a higher average salary at $3,297,344, but the multiplier is almost the same, 4.85 vs 4.87. However, breaking the numbers down by team shows that Marner’s multiplier for his team is only 3.65, as Toronto has the highest payroll in the league. Looking at each teams' highest paid player vs the average NHL salary show a multiplier range from Marner’s 4.85 to Colorado’s and Calgary’s highest paid players with a low of just 2.05. And when comparing players against their team’s average salary the high is Edmonton’s 4.86 to Calgary’s low of 1.92. In a true free market each school would be able to determine the value of their players and not all would receive the same multiplier. Still, I averaged the team and league multipliers for each team’s highest paid player(s) and the team average is just under 3.14 and the league average is just over 3.14. Therefore, I have added a sheet to my spreadsheet that uses this multiplier and not Berri’s 4.87. Using it shows that the numbers moving even more in the direction of the current scholarship model vs a paid model for the top players.

                  I also added a second sheet for each school using the 2017-18 numbers. Since most players are not top performers I added average pay columns to compare the EADA revenue and NCAA reported and earned revenue vs the actual or estimated scholarship and meal allowance amounts each school awarded. It turns out that 9 of the 11 (I’m still waiting on Minnesota State) public schools I have data for awarded more in scholarships and meal allowances than the average pay calculated using the EADA numbers. Ten of the 11 did so using the NCAA reported revenue and all 11 did so using the NCAA earned revenue numbers, with the difference increasing in the favor of the players. Of the 24 private schools, all 16 that offer scholarships awarded more in estimated scholarship amounts than the average pay calculated using the EADA numbers.

                  Furthermore, Profosser Berri did not mention (and I overlooked) that if the players were paid then that would be taxable income. As far as I'm aware scholarships and meal allowances are not taxable.

                  Sean
                  Last edited by Sean Pickett; 10-30-2019, 01:10 PM.
                  Women's Hockey East Champions 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2010
                  Men's NCAA Champions 2009, 1995, 1978, 1972, 1971

                  BU Hockey Games
                  BU Hockey highlights and extras
                  NCAA Hockey Financials
                  Women's Division I Longest Hockey Games

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Value of Players

                    To make my value of players spreadsheet relevant to the men I had added a sheet that has the 2018 numbers for most of the schools that have menís programs (Army and Air Force donít submit EADA reports and I donít have Armyís NCAA financials, while Iím still waiting on Minnesota State for their 2017 & 2018 NCAA financials). As expected, with the higher revenues for the menís programs most of them donít do as well when it comes to having scholarships and meal allowances being an equal or better value than if the players were paid.

                    The schools awarded $42,309,659 in scholarships and another $1,039,948 in meal allowance, just 30.6% of their combined reported EADA revenue (minus Army & Air Force) of $141,507,277. Even when the 10 schools that donít offer scholarships are excluded itís just 34.6% of reported EADA revenue. Both fall far short of the womenís 51.7% of their combined reported EADA revenue going to scholarships and meal allowances ($23,148,059 in scholarships and another $200,983 in meal allowances against $45,205,433 in EADA reported revenue) for all schools and the 64.4% of reported EADA revenue when the 8 non-scholarship schools are excluded. That said, 16 of the 28 public schools that give men's scholarships did give out more in scholarships and meal allowances than the average pay each player would have received based on reported NCAA earned revenue. And the estimated scholarships given out by 10 of the private schools is 59.9% of their reported EADA revenue, so it likely even more of the private schools give out at least 50% of their earned revenue in scholarships and meal allowances.

                    Sean
                    Women's Hockey East Champions 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2010
                    Men's NCAA Champions 2009, 1995, 1978, 1972, 1971

                    BU Hockey Games
                    BU Hockey highlights and extras
                    NCAA Hockey Financials
                    Women's Division I Longest Hockey Games

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

                      What is the motivation behind paying college athletes? I can see where the athletes and parents would be for this, but most just seem proud and grateful for the opportunity. And there is the matter of taxes, parents would lose their kid as a credit/deduction (which it could be argued should be the case anyway since the schools are supporting them now).
                      Today there is a lot of discussion about white privilege but in the deepest darkest days of Jim Crow laws whites never had the advantage over blacks that athletes today enjoy over the rest of the students. That should be the real discussion, athlete privilege in universities.

                      Is it because the world of sophisticated left coast liberals has been turned upside down by Midwesterners who have just fallen off the turnip truck and southern hillbillies who have risen above them in athletic competition? Is it the money managers and lawyers who see more potential clients? Are alumni tired of paying star athletes under the table and want recognition for their efforts? Anybody know?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

                        Originally posted by pokechecker View Post
                        What is the motivation behind paying college athletes?...Is it the money managers and lawyers who see more potential clients?
                        Both of these and more. It's clearly a naked money grab (fueled by ever-increasing media rights fees) by lawyers, family advisors (aka agents), advertising agencies, greedy P5 institutions, and equally greedy sports-related businesses (looking at you, Nike), that will surely have unintended consequences. What bothers me most about this is the notion that a free college education and resulting college degree carry no value. Among the unintended consequences, at least as I see it--

                        --Intercollegiate athletics, as we have known it, will become the near-exclusive franchise of the P5.
                        --Athlete salaries will drive still another wedge between athletes and the undergrad student bodies, who increasingly perceive athletes as being a privileged and pampered class that does not represent them.
                        --We will see more and more former star college athletes--those that don't get drafted by or make it in the pros--struggling to make a living because they won't have a "valueless" college degree to fall back on.
                        --It wouldn't surprise me if a significant number of non-P5 institutions quit what has become the athletics arms race and de-emphasize intercollegiate athletics.

                        I don't claim to be a futurist but I see an uncertain future ahead for college hockey. Funding of athlete payrolls (the lion's share of which will surely go to football and hoops) will almost inevitably have to be at least partially offset by dropping other sports.

                        Bottom line: The rich will get richer. The rest of us are irrelevant.
                        Last edited by Split-N; 10-31-2019, 10:10 AM.
                        "Through the years, we ever will acclaim........"

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

                          Originally posted by pokechecker View Post
                          What is the motivation behind paying college athletes? I can see where the athletes and parents would be for this, but most just seem proud and grateful for the opportunity. And there is the matter of taxes, parents would lose their kid as a credit/deduction (which it could be argued should be the case anyway since the schools are supporting them now).
                          Today there is a lot of discussion about white privilege but in the deepest darkest days of Jim Crow laws whites never had the advantage over blacks that athletes today enjoy over the rest of the students. That should be the real discussion, athlete privilege in universities.

                          Is it because the world of sophisticated left coast liberals has been turned upside down by Midwesterners who have just fallen off the turnip truck and southern hillbillies who have risen above them in athletic competition? Is it the money managers and lawyers who see more potential clients? Are alumni tired of paying star athletes under the table and want recognition for their efforts? Anybody know?
                          Couple of factors - 1. People don't understand basic economics. They see CBS paid a billion for NCAA basketball rights, and think that all the schools are swimming in money. Forget about expenses, salaries already being paid, other payments to third parties, etc. We need to dole that billion out right now to those players!; 2. People see the possible injustice to a guy like Zion Williamson, who was forbidden from going to the NBA at 18, and then suffered an injury at college. In hockey, that's less of an issue, since a guy like Jack Hughes CAN go pro at 18, and for the others, there really wasn't an immediate demand for them anyway.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

                            Originally posted by Split-N View Post
                            Among the unintended consequences, at least as I see it--

                            --It wouldn't surprise me if a significant number of non-P5 institutions quit what has become the athletics arms race and de-emphasize intercollegiate athletics.

                            I don't claim to be a futurist but I see an uncertain future ahead for college hockey. Funding of athlete payrolls (the lion's share of which will surely go to football and hoops) will almost inevitably have to be at least partially offset by dropping other sports.

                            Bottom line: The rich will get richer. The rest of us are irrelevant.
                            I don't even see all the P5 schools surviving this, depending on what the final rules are. Remember that the NFL -the Golden Goose of pro sports- only has 32 teams. If there was a lot more money out there from adding franchises, the NFL would have done it already. And even with them, you can't convince me that the Chargers, the Cardinals, the Jags and a couple of others are making any significant profit. The college sports pie isn't big enough to feed the Baylors, Oregon States, Mississippi States, etc., if those schools are going to have to pay competitive wages to keep up with the Alabamas of college sports.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

                              Originally posted by pokechecker View Post
                              What is the motivation behind paying college athletes?
                              Originally posted by Split-N View Post
                              Both of these and more. It's clearly a naked money grab
                              Originally posted by purpleinnebraska View Post
                              Couple of factors - 1. People don't understand basic economics. They see CBS paid a billion for NCAA basketball rights, and think that all the schools are swimming in money. Forget about expenses, salaries already being paid, other payments to third parties, etc. We need to dole that billion out right now to those players.
                              I agree that a large part of it is many people see how much the P5 schools are pulling in and think that the players are exploited.

                              I only have the NCAA financials for 29 public schools that play DI hockey, only 19 which are full DI programs. Of those 19 the total earned revenue for 2018 averages $64,626,647 per school, but the median is just $15,663,354, since the B1G schools and Arizona State account for the bulk of the revenue. OSU tops the table with $205.5 million and with ASU bringing up the rear of the P5 schools with $93 million. Of the rest of the schools UConn is tops with $40.3 million, Air Force next with $19.8 million and UMass Lowell at the bottom with just $3.2 million in earned revenue. However, most people donít even look at the earned revenue and just see the reported revenue, which also includes the subsidies that the schools and local, state and federal governments provide to fund athletics. Looked at this way the average revenue for the 19 schools jumps to $80.8 million and the median jumps to $48.1 million. OSU still leads and since they report no subsidies their revenue remains $205.5 million, but ASU revenue rises to $113.6 million. Of the rest UConn revenue rises to $79.3 million, Air Force revenue goes to $60.1 million and UMass Lowell revenue goes to 21.3 million.

                              That looks great, but as mentioned; when expenses are looked at you see a different picture. OSU expended $203.8 million of its revenue, leaving a profit of just $1.75 million. Of the $203.8 million, $25.05 million ($21.3 million on scholarships and $3.75 million on meals) goes to the athletes. If OSU had to spend another $75 million paying the athletes 50% of their revenue it is likely many sports would have to be dropped. ASU expended $126.8 million, $13.2 million more than their reported revenue and $33.8 million more than their earned revenue. They spent $17.55 million ($15.7 million on scholarships and $ 1.85 million on meals) on the athletes and if they had to spend another $46.5 million paying athletes 50% of their earned revenue that would totally wreck their athletic budget and as mentioned, they might not be able to survive.

                              Of course, when most people talk about paying the athletes they actually only mean the football and menís basketball players. Looking at OSU for 2018 football revenue was $110.7 million and expenses were $46.1 million, for a earned profit of $64.4 million. They awarded $6.6 million ($4.1 million in scholarships and $2.5 million in meals) to the athletes, a far cry from $55.3 million (50% of revenue). And even if the players received that amount the football program would still have made $15.6 million profit. OSU menís basketball revenue was $24 million and expenses were $22 million, although $6.4 million of that was for severance. If that was not counted then the basketball team made $8.4 million in earned profit. They awarded $711 thousand ($616 thousand in scholarships and $95 thousand in meals) to the athletes, again a far cry from $12 million (50% of revenue). However, if OSU did pay out the $12 million the program would have lost $3.6 million (or $10 million with the severance included). So, paying the football and menís basketball athletes 50% of revenue would have reduced the amount OSU had available for other sports programs by $60 million.

                              Looking at ASU, it is a very different picture. For 2018 football revenue was $50.1 million and expenses were $52.8 million, for a loss of $2.7 million (although $12.9 million was for severance). If that was not counted football would have made a profit of $10.2 million. They awarded $4.5 million ($3.6 million in scholarships and $905 thousand in meals) to the athletes, a fraction of $25 million (50% of revenue). And if the players had received that amount the football program would have lost $10.3 million not including the severance ($23.2 million with it included). ASU menís basketball revenue was $8.7 million and expenses were $8.1 million, for a small profit of $600 thousand. They awarded $581 thousand ($500 thousand in scholarships and $81 thousand in meals) to the athletes, again, a fraction of $4.35 million (50% of revenue). If ASU paid that to the players then the team would have lost $3.75 million. If ASUís football and menís basketball programs lost $14 million dollars a year combined it would be hard for the school to keep either of them going, let alone the rest of their sports programs.

                              Sean
                              Women's Hockey East Champions 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2010
                              Men's NCAA Champions 2009, 1995, 1978, 1972, 1971

                              BU Hockey Games
                              BU Hockey highlights and extras
                              NCAA Hockey Financials
                              Women's Division I Longest Hockey Games

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

                                I didn't think any of these proposals equated with schools paying any athletes a salary, but rather the NCAA would no longer prevent an athlete from profiting off his/her likeness, from advertising, etc.?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X