Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NCAA Hockey Financials

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

  • gfmorris
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

    A relevant point to note here: UAH is only 60 or so years old, and its roots as a commuter school have not led to a sustained base in donations from alumni. Now that the school houses a solid population on campus (perhaps a majority now ... I haven't seen the numbers), that may change in the next two decades.

    GFMŖ

    Leave a comment:


  • Sean Pickett
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

    Originally posted by pokechecker View Post
    FWIW, I did a quick check of these schools endowments, they are paltry compared to those of many other schools, in fact the endowment TOTAL of these schools don't come close to a single Big Ten school (in the billions)and are a drop in the bucket of most Ivies(in the tens of billions), I would guess each Ivy school gets more from just one dead alumni each year than all these schools have managed to accumulate in total

    Lake Superior = 14 million
    Ferris = 34
    Al-Huntsville = 75
    Bemidji = 23
    Bowling Green = 138
    Mankato = 59
    Michigan Tech = 96
    Northern Mich = 50
    Alaska Anchorage = 50
    Alaska fairbanks = 143
    Originally posted by Russell Jaslow View Post
    Clarkson -- $186 mil.
    St. Lawrence -- $306 mil.
    I didn't look up all the endowments, but the top 100 listed on The Best Schools website article The 100 Richest Universities: Their Generosity and Commitment to Research include all 8 Ivies and 14 Big Ten schools, plus Notre Dame, Boston College and Boston University among schools that have DI men's hockey programs. I created a list of the 25 schools, plus the WCHA schools as well as Clarkson and St. Lawrence. I have given the endowment rank for the those in the top 100, as well as their hockey expenses rank for 2017-18 and their hockey expenses as a % of their endowment.
    Code:
    Endowments (in billions)
                        Endowment   Hockey Expenses
    School              $      Rank Rank  as % of Endowment
    Harvard            38.3      1   51   0.0034
    Yale               29.3      3   47   0.0050
    Princeton          25.9      5   55   0.0044
    *UPenn             13.7      7   n/a
    Michigan           11.9      9    4   0.038
    *Northwestern      11.1     10   n/a
    *Columbia          10.9     12   n/a
    Notre Dame         10.7     13    2   0.051
    Cornell             7.3     18   41   0.024
    Dartmouth           5.5     22   54   0.022
    Ohio State          5.2     23   12   0.068
    Penn State          4.3     27    8   0.090
    Minnesota           3.7     29    3   0.13
    Brown               3.6     30   59   0.023
    Wisconsin           3.0     32    1   0.24
    Michigan State      2.9     33    7   0.14
    *Illinois           2.6     37   n/a
    *Purdue             2.5     38   n/a
    Boston College      2.5     41    6   0.17
    *Indiana            2.4     42   n/a
    Boston University   2.2     47   13   0.16
    *Nebraska           1.7     64   n/a
    *Iowa               1.5     71   n/a
    *Rutgers            1.3     82   n/a
    *Maryland           1.3     87   n/a
    St. Lawrence        0.306   n/a  35   0.70
    Clarkson            0.186   n/a  24   1.4
    Alaska Fairbanks    0.143   n/a  37   1.5
    Bowling Green       0.138   n/a  40   1.3
    Michigan Tech       0.096   n/a  29   2.5
    Alabama Huntsville  0.075   n/a  45   2.0
    Minnesota State     0.059   n/a  33   3.7
    Northern Michigan   0.050   n/a  22   5.4
    Alaska-Anchorage    0.050   n/a  31   4.7
    Ferris State        0.034   n/a  49   4.2
    Bemidji State       0.023   n/a  44   7.4
    Lake Superior State 0.014   n/a  56   8.1
    * do not have DI varsity hockey program

    Since they don't give out athletic scholarships the Ivies rank among the bottom schools for hockey expenses along with the WCHA schools, while the B1G schools ranks among the top, alomg with Notre Dame, Boston College and Boston University. However, as percentage of their endowments their hockey expenses are a fraction of 1%, while for the WCHA teams it ranges from Bowling Green's 1.3% to Lake Superior's 8.1% (the WCHA schools overall athletic budgets run between UA_'s 5.0% of their endowment (an outlier as the next lowest is UAH's 10.0%) and Bemidji's 30.7%).

    Speaking of endowments, I recall that when the recession hit a decade ago Harvard's endowment was about where it is now, but they lost between 10 and 11 billion dollars in 2008-09 (Yale lost around $7 billion).

    Sean

    Leave a comment:


  • Russell Jaslow
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

    Originally posted by pokechecker View Post
    FWIW, I did a quick check of these schools endowments, they are paltry compared to those of many other schools, in fact the endowment TOTAL of these schools don't come close to a single Big Ten school (in the billions)and are a drop in the bucket of most Ivies(in the tens of billions), I would guess each Ivy school gets more from just one dead alumni each year than all these schools have managed to accumulate in total

    Lake Superior = 14 million
    Ferris = 34
    Al-Huntsville = 75
    Bemidji = 23
    Bowling Green = 138
    Mankato = 59
    Michigan Tech = 96
    Northern Mich = 50
    Alaska Anchorage = 50
    Alaska fairbanks = 143
    Sometimes size matters, but I think ultimately it comes down to the type of degrees you offer (i.e., where alums can get higher paying jobs) and the "private" school factor, since usually higher income families can more easily afford the private over public schools. And of course reputation, but I think outside of the really highly reputable schools, like Ivies, it doesn't play as big of a factor as size, degrees offered, and private vs. public. Just my hunch.

    As an example, I looked up my alma mater's endowment, a small state school (at one time the smallest college in the SUNY system, until a bunch of 2-year schools turned into 4-year schools, who are even smaller) -- Potsdam State.

    Potsdam has an endowment of $29 million. Despite the size of the school, it is one of the largest endowments among colleges (not universities) in the SUNY system. Part of that I suspect is due to its very strong computer science (which is what I went for) and math programs, degrees that pay a lot in the real world. (And I'm sure a music school producing Rene Fleming got a lot of donations from her, LOL)

    But then I looked up the other North Country schools, and it should be no surprise the ratio of cost of school is directly related to the size of the endowment.

    Clarkson -- $186 mil.
    St. Lawrence -- $306 mil.

    Leave a comment:


  • pokechecker
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

    FWIW, I did a quick check of these schools endowments, they are paltry compared to those of many other schools, in fact the endowment TOTAL of these schools don't come close to a single Big Ten school (in the billions)and are a drop in the bucket of most Ivies(in the tens of billions), I would guess each Ivy school gets more from just one dead alumni each year than all these schools have managed to accumulate in total

    Lake Superior = 14 million
    Ferris = 34
    Al-Huntsville = 75
    Bemidji = 23
    Bowling Green = 138
    Mankato = 59
    Michigan Tech = 96
    Northern Mich = 50
    Alaska Anchorage = 50
    Alaska fairbanks = 143

    Leave a comment:


  • Sean Pickett
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

    Originally posted by Ed Trefzger View Post
    It would be interesting to see travel broken out from the Alaska schools' budgets. Could that be the difference?
    It is part of the difference, but not all of it.

    Average travel expenses 2013-18 (2013-16 for MSUM) in thousands:
    Alaska Fairbanks 364
    Alaska Anchorage 325
    Michigan Tech 250
    Minnesota State 242
    Bowling Green 199
    Ferris State 173
    Lake Superior 169
    Bemidji State 157

    Travel expenses 2018 in thousands:
    Alaska Fairbanks 367
    Michigan Tech 310
    Northern Michigan 278
    Alaska Anchorage 259
    Bemidji State 205
    Bowling Green 193
    Ferris State 156
    Lake Superior 152

    Guarantees also are part of the difference.
    Average Guarantees 2013-18 in thousands:
    Alaska Fairbanks 248
    Alaska Anchorage 115

    2018 guarantees in thousands:
    Alaska Fairbanks 187
    Alaska Anchorage 97

    Originally posted by gfmorris View Post
    Travel is a huge chunk of all A$a schools.

    GFM
    Travel as a percentage of each current (except UAH) WCHA school's average expenses for 2013-18:
    Alaska Fairbanks 16.0%
    Lake Superior State 13.9%
    Alaska-Anchorage 13.6%
    Ferris State 12.5%
    Bowling Green 12.1%
    Michigan Tech 10.9%
    Minnesota State 10.9%
    Northern Michigan 10.0%
    Bemidji State 9.6%

    Travel as a percentage of each current (except UAH & MSUM) WCHA school's expenses for 2018:
    Alaska Fairbanks 17.6%
    Lake Superior State 13.4%
    Michigan Tech 12.9%
    Bemidji State 12.1%
    Alaska-Anchorage 11.1%
    Ferris State 10.9%
    Bowling Green 10.4%
    Northern Michigan 10.3%

    Sean

    Leave a comment:


  • TalonsUpPuckDown
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

    Originally posted by Sean Pickett View Post
    ...
    So, if the two Alaska schools are underfunded what does that say about Bowling Green, Bemidji State, Alabama Huntsville, Ferris State and Lake Superior State?

    Sean Pickett
    In BG's case, the term "Moneyball" comes to mind...
    Last edited by TalonsUpPuckDown; 11-13-2019, 01:37 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • gfmorris
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

    Originally posted by Ed Trefzger View Post
    It would be interesting to see travel broken out from the Alaska schools' budgets. Could that be the difference?
    Travel is a huge chunk of all A$a schools.

    GFM

    Leave a comment:


  • Ed Trefzger
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

    It would be interesting to see travel broken out from the Alaska schools' budgets. Could that be the difference?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sean Pickett
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

    I'm still waiting for Minnesota State's 2017 & 2018 financials to finish updating my spreadsheet, but I wanted to respond to Jim Connelly's comment "for the two Alaskans schools, this is their problem. Funding for these programs is inadequate and needs to be bolstered and not reduced." in the latest TMQ .

    Looking at their NCAA financial reports for 2010-2018 (and the EADAs for Alabama Huntsville and Minnesota State for 2017 & 2018) shows that both schools have spent more than most of the the other WCHA teams. Since the new WCHA formed in 2013 Anchorage has had the highest average spending, with Fairbanks fourth:

    Average hockey program expenses 2013-18 (in millions)
    Alaska Anchorage 2.39
    Northern Michigan 2.31
    Michigan Tech 2.30
    Alaska Fairbanks 2.28
    Minnesota State 2.20
    Bowling Green 1.65
    Bemidji State 1.64
    Alabama Huntsville 1.46
    Ferris State 1.39
    Lake Superior 1.22

    For the 2017-18 season both Alaska schools did slightly reduce their spending, but still were 3rd and 5th:
    Northern Michigan 2.69
    Michigan Tech 2.40
    Alaska Anchorage 2.33
    Minnesota State 2.19
    Alaska Fairbanks 2.09
    Bowling Green 1.85
    Bemidji State 1.70
    Alabama Huntsville 1.52
    Ferris State 1.43
    Lake Superior 1.14

    Of 30 public schools (excluding Army) Northern Michigan is 14th overall for 2017-18, MTU is 18th, UAA is 20th, Minnesota State is 22nd and UA_ is 24th, with the other five at the bottom (26th-30th). And when looking at the reported expenses from the EADAs for the private schools NMU is 22nd out of 59 schools, MTU is 29th, UAA is 31st, Minnesota State is 33rd, UA_ is 37th, Bowling Green is 40th, Bemidji State is 44th, Alabama Huntsville is 45th, Ferris State is 49th and Lake Superior State is 56th (the other bottom six schools do not offer scholarships). So, if the two Alaska schools are underfunded what does that say about Bowling Green, Bemidji State, Alabama Huntsville, Ferris State and Lake Superior State?

    Sean Pickett

    Leave a comment:


  • ticapnews
    replied
    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?
    Athletes go around campus lynching other students en masse just for picking up a book? Jocks beating up professors because they got a bad grade in Business Administration 101? No? Then don't try to compare modern college athletics to the terror of the Jim Crow South again. If you want to discuss the financials go right ahead. Leave the white supremacy and QAnon conspiracy theories off this board.

    Leave a comment:


  • Split-N
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

    Originally posted by Slap Shot View Post
    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.?
    You may well be right (and I hope you are) but the real answer is that nobody knows what this is ultimately going to come to. The NCAA has remanded the issue for study and policy development, and nothing of substance is expected before 2021. IMO, even if whatever NCAA policy emerges is narrowly drawn so it is limited to things like royalties for use of images and likenesses, etc., the genie will have been released from the bottle so I can't believe it will stop there.

    Don't kid yourself. For the big guys, the end game is play for pay under whatever guise (stipend/allowance/grant/salary) works.
    Last edited by Split-N; 11-01-2019, 09:25 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • TalonsUpPuckDown
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

    Originally posted by Slap Shot View Post
    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.?
    This is what I thought as well. Athletes would be able to collect on commercial use of their image/likeness as below:

    "NCAA Football" was one of EA Sports' top-selling titles prior to its cancellation. Electronic Arts CEO Andrew Wilson signaled earlier this month, weeks after California passed a law allowing college athletes to sign endorsement deals, that the company was open to producing a new version if legal obstacles related to student-athlete compensation subsided.

    "Our position is we would love to build a game," Wilson said during an interview at the Wall Street Journal Tech Live conference. "If there's a world where the folks who govern these things are able to solve for how to pay players for the use of their name and likeness and stats and data, we would jump at the opportunity to build a game in a heartbeat."

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/sports/e...tball-comeback
    Towards the end of the 30-for-30 on the Fab Five, Mitch Albom is listening to Chris Webber complain that his jersey is being sold for $75 apiece and he doesn't get a cut. Under these new rules that would change. But it wouldn't necessarily be Michigan paying Webber a salary per se. At least this is how I understand the rule change (and I admit I may not have this right).
    Last edited by TalonsUpPuckDown; 10-31-2019, 03:31 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Slap Shot
    replied
    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.?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sean Pickett
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • purpleinnebraska
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X