Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NCAA Hockey Financials

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

  • #31
    Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

    Originally posted by vicb View Post
    An interesting thing is happening in New York. Free tuition this fall for any New York resident.

    http://www.timesunion.com/7day-break...n-11176914.php

    So what is going to happen to the private schools in New York as far as their applications and admissions from in state students? State University of New York is going to have no issues attracting students. Can the same be said for the private colleges? Do they have to spend more time attracting out of state or foreign students. Only time is gonna tell on this one.

    And who is footing the bill for this program. Hmmmmmmm!!!
    This will also have an impact on recruiting for all sports. particularly at the D3 level. Go out of state and get some academic scholarships/financial aid or stay in state and get a free education. Do the SUNY schools become stronger over time by keeping their athletes in state?

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

      Originally posted by pokechecker View Post
      so what have you learned by gathering all this data?
      summarize it for us (hopefully something beyond hockey is expensive)
      I have already written several posts about what I have learned, but bottom line: hockey is cheap, not expensive.

      Of the 29 DI schools that have football and men's and/or women's hockey only two (North Dakota, 20.4%; Maine, 10.2%) averaged more than 10% on men's hockey, with the range between 1.5% and 9.1%. None averaged more than 7.0% on women's hockey, ranging from said 7.0% down to 1.1%. Of the 11 DI schools without football men's hockey ranged from UMass Lowell's 17.7% (but failing as they transitioned to DI) to Mercyhurst's 9.2%. For women's teams it ranges from 6.4% to 11.3%. For DII/DIII schools for men it ranges from AIC's 7.4% to Colorado College's 38.4%, well for women it ranges from 4.5% to 19.6%.

      I have also learned that every single school spends more on men's programs than they do on women's programs.

      I have further learned that North Dakota supports their men's team at a level that none of the other DI schools do for their men's teams.

      Finally, I have learned that the success of Minnesota's and Wisconsin's women's teams appears to be causing an increase in overall expenditures on women's hockey by the rest of the schools that sponsor the sport.

      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
      I need a kidney; looking for a donor

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by vicb View Post
        An interesting thing is happening in New York. Free tuition this fall for any New York resident.

        http://www.timesunion.com/7day-break...n-11176914.php

        So what is going to happen to the private schools in New York as far as their applications and admissions from in state students? State University of New York is going to have no issues attracting students. Can the same be said for the private colleges? Do they have to spend more time attracting out of state or foreign students. Only time is gonna tell on this one.

        And who is footing the bill for this program. Hmmmmmmm!!!
        Clarkson has about 100 less in this year's first year class. They point to Gov. Cuomo.

        That's about $3 million less in income (figuring the average Bill is $30K).
        CCT '77 & '78
        4 kids
        5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
        1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

        ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
        - Benjamin Franklin

        Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

        I want to live forever. So far, so good.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by vicb View Post
          An interesting thing is happening in New York. Free tuition this fall for any New York resident.

          http://www.timesunion.com/7day-break...n-11176914.php

          So what is going to happen to the private schools in New York as far as their applications and admissions from in state students? State University of New York is going to have no issues attracting students. Can the same be said for the private colleges? Do they have to spend more time attracting out of state or foreign students. Only time is gonna tell on this one.

          And who is footing the bill for this program. Hmmmmmmm!!!
          There are a lot of caveats to that "free" education which might not in the end make it so "free" anymore...
          Russell Jaslow
          [Former] SUNYAC Correspondent
          U.S. College Hockey Online

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by pokechecker View Post
            Are you saying that students pick their school based on sports?
            Absolutely some do.

            When I was picking a school, I had three criteria:
            1) It had to be a small school.
            2) It had to have a good computer science program.
            3) It had to have a hockey team.

            My Uncle picked Syracuse because he was leaning towards a big school with a big time football program ... even though he didn't play. (I think he majored in Engineering.)

            I know people who specifically only look at huge schools like Big Ten schools because they can offer so much including multiple sports programs, even if they don't play.

            Prospective students look for different things in their overall college experience, and for some, sports is a major part of that experience.
            Russell Jaslow
            [Former] SUNYAC Correspondent
            U.S. College Hockey Online

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Russell Jaslow View Post
              There are a lot of caveats to that "free" education which might not in the end make it so "free" anymore...
              True, but in the area where we went to college there are a lot of families who could take advantage of the program.

              Gripes Russell, those were my criteria, too!!!
              CCT '77 & '78
              4 kids
              5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
              1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

              ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
              - Benjamin Franklin

              Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

              I want to live forever. So far, so good.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

                Originally posted by joecct View Post
                Clarkson has about 100 less in this year's first year class. They point to Gov. Cuomo.
                Looking at my spreadsheet Clarkson's incoming enrollment ranged from a low of 712 in 2010 to a high of 851 the following year (year on spreadsheet is end of school year, i.e., 2011 is the 2010-11 school year). Do you know if the school wanted higher and lower enrollments those years?

                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
                I need a kidney; looking for a donor

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: NCAA Hockey Financials

                  Originally posted by Sean Pickett View Post
                  I have already written several posts about what I have learned, but bottom line: hockey is cheap, not expensive.

                  Of the 29 DI schools that have football and men's and/or women's hockey only two (North Dakota, 20.4%; Maine, 10.2%) averaged more than 10% on men's hockey, with the range between 1.5% and 9.1%. None averaged more than 7.0% on women's hockey, ranging from said 7.0% down to 1.1%. Of the 11 DI schools without football men's hockey ranged from UMass Lowell's 17.7% (but failing as they transitioned to DI) to Mercyhurst's 9.2%. For women's teams it ranges from 6.4% to 11.3%. For DII/DIII schools for men it ranges from AIC's 7.4% to Colorado College's 38.4%, well for women it ranges from 4.5% to 19.6%.

                  I have also learned that every single school spends more on men's programs than they do on women's programs.

                  I have further learned that North Dakota supports their men's team at a level that none of the other DI schools do for their men's teams.

                  Finally, I have learned that the success of Minnesota's and Wisconsin's women's teams appears to be causing an increase in overall expenditures on women's hockey by the rest of the schools that sponsor the sport.

                  Sean
                  using % of expenditure means nothing as a measure of whether a sport is expensive or not
                  as for your other findings, duh, you had to go to all that work to come to that conclusion?
                  oh well, it is your time

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Value of Players

                    I posted this over on the men's forum in response to the below post on my thread there, but it really belongs in the women's forum so I'm also posting it here. My NCAA financials should be updated for 2017 & 2018 soon.

                    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, 05:33 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
                    I need a kidney; looking for a donor

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Value of Players

                      even today, if the Badgers sold out every game that would only be about 1/4 million at best in revenue from tickets, I get that people from WI like brats and cheese, but they'd have to eat a heckuva lot of it to give them an additional 7 million in revenue

                      now if they sold beer at LaBahn I'd believe the $7 million in revenue, but they don't

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Value of Players

                        Originally posted by pokechecker View Post
                        even today, if the Badgers sold out every game that would only be about 1/4 million at best in revenue from tickets, I get that people from WI like brats and cheese, but they'd have to eat a heckuva lot of it to give them an additional 7 million in revenue

                        now if they sold beer at LaBahn I'd believe the $7 million in revenue, but they don't
                        And there is only 1 stand that sells all the usual fare, so it's hard even to buy something sometimes with the wait. I don't think beer sales would do much, the fans are all old farts who don't drink anymore or maybe have just 1 or young families with kids to drive home safely.
                        Wisconsin Hockey: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 WE WANT MORE!
                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Come to the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Originally Posted by Wisko McBadgerton:
                        "Baggot says Hughes and Rockwood are centering the top two lines...
                        Timothy A --> Great hockey mind... Or Greatest hockey mind?!?"

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Overall and Earned Profit and Loss

                          "An area that needs to be addressed."

                          This is going to be fun. (Just try to translate Commish Ackerman’s statement if you have any doubts.)


                          https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/s...hlete-pay.html
                          Last edited by thirdtime's . . .; 10-29-2019, 05:02 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Overall and Earned Profit and Loss

                            Originally posted by thirdtime's . . . View Post
                            "An area that needs to be addressed."

                            This is going to be fun. (Just try to translate Commish Ackerman’s statement if you have any doubts.)


                            https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/s...hlete-pay.html
                            I heard on the news this morning it was approved for 2021, but no details

                            IMO, it will only make the big stronger and the weak weaker.
                            The Labron James types will reap all the benefits and the "stars" of lesser sports will get peanuts
                            basically it legalizes and brings above board what is already happening below the table

                            the NCAA is a brilliant fabrication, it takes all the blame off the schools, who in turn are the NCAA
                            IOW, the NCAA is an organization that does the bidding of the schools

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Value of Players

                              Originally posted by Timothy A View Post
                              And there is only 1 stand that sells all the usual fare, so it's hard even to buy something sometimes with the wait. I don't think beer sales would do much, the fans are all old farts who don't drink anymore or maybe have just 1 or young families with kids to drive home safely.
                              if LaBahn was sold out for every game, each fan would have to buy about $180 in food each game to come up with the revenue claimed,
                              so IOW, if each fan ate 6 brats, 5 chips & cheese wiz, and washed it down with twenty one beers, that would do it

                              I think that's doable by the typical Wisconsinite

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Value of Players

                                Originally posted by pokechecker View Post
                                even today, if the Badgers sold out every game that would only be about 1/4 million at best in revenue from tickets, I get that people from WI like brats and cheese, but they'd have to eat a heckuva lot of it to give them an additional 7 million in revenue

                                now if they sold beer at LaBahn I'd believe the $7 million in revenue, but they don't
                                Since LeBahn opened here are the numbers reported by Wisconsin through 2018:

                                Season - ticket revenue - total attendance - average ticket price
                                2012-13 - $44,842 - 32,590 - $1.38
                                2013-14 - $76,676 - 46,589 - $1.65
                                2014-15 - $59,571 - 36,523- $1.63
                                2015-16 - $84,045 - 42,398 - $1.98
                                2016-17 - $98,640 - 55,315 - $1.78
                                2017-18 - $102,612 - 38,505 - $2.66

                                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
                                I need a kidney; looking for a donor

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X