Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 42

Thread: NCAA Hockey Financials

  1. #21
    All Hail
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    1,708

    Re: Value of Players

    Quote 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........"

  2. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,397

    Re: Value of Players

    Quote 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

  3. #23
    2009 NCAA Champions Sean Pickett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Posts
    2,587

    Re: Value of Players

    Quote 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."

    Quote 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 at 01:10 PM.
    Women's Hockey East Champions 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2010
    Men's NCAA Champions 2009, 1995, 1978, 1972, 1971

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

  4. #24
    2009 NCAA Champions Sean Pickett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Posts
    2,587

    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

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

  5. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,397

    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?

  6. #26
    All Hail
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    1,708

    Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

    Quote 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 at 10:10 AM.
    "Through the years, we ever will acclaim........"

  7. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    south sioux city, ne
    Posts
    1,322

    Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

    Quote 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.

  8. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    south sioux city, ne
    Posts
    1,322

    Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

    Quote 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.

  9. #29
    2009 NCAA Champions Sean Pickett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Posts
    2,587

    Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

    Quote Originally Posted by pokechecker View Post
    What is the motivation behind paying college athletes?
    Quote Originally Posted by Split-N View Post
    Both of these and more. It's clearly a naked money grab
    Quote 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

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

  10. #30
    I got nothing Slap Shot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Clark Freeport Zone, Philippines
    Posts
    32,268

    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.?

  11. #31
    Roll along you BG Warriors!
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    OH
    Posts
    765

    Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

    Quote 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 at 03:31 PM.

  12. #32
    All Hail
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    1,708

    Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

    Quote 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 at 09:25 AM.
    "Through the years, we ever will acclaim........"

  13. #33
    Never Forget!
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    4,793

    Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

    Quote 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.

  14. #34
    2009 NCAA Champions Sean Pickett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Posts
    2,587

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

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

  15. #35
    Follow me on Twitter: @EdTrefzger Ed Trefzger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    2,749

    Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

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

  16. #36
    gfmorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Madison, AL, USA
    Posts
    8,262

    Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

    Quote 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
    Geof F. Morris
    UAH BSE MAE 2002
    UAHHockey.com

  17. #37
    Roll along you BG Warriors!
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    OH
    Posts
    765

    Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

    Quote 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 at 01:37 PM.

  18. #38
    2009 NCAA Champions Sean Pickett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Posts
    2,587

    Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

    Quote 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

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

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

  19. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,397

    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

  20. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Rochester, NY USA
    Posts
    6,034

    Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

    Quote 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.
    Russell Jaslow
    [Former] SUNYAC Correspondent
    U.S. College Hockey Online

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •