2015 Frozen Four Finalists

[norm1909]

Re: 2015 Frozen Four Finalists

The most recent audited financials - http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Finances/NCAA+consolidated+financial+statements - as long as the revenues flow like they do, allocating money based upon participation is a dream....

Per those financials, the "Division III championships and programs" expenses were $25,373,804 the ""Management and general" expenses were $38,319,407. Essentually, the NCAA spends half again as much on themselves as they do on Division III.

 

[NUProf]

Re: 2015 Frozen Four Finalists

Per those financials, the "Division III championships and programs" expenses were $25,373,804 the ""Management and general" expenses were $38,319,407. Essentually, the NCAA spends half again as much on themselves as they do on Division III.

And you can't say that there was a lot of "revenue" brought in by the management and general expenses division either. It just seems to me that for an organization that claims to support college athletics their truth in advertising claims are somewhat suspect. Every organization has to reallocate some income to cover the less lucrative but important parts of the organization. A big problem for this actually happening is that for all intents and purposes schools that want to be DIII don't really have anywhere to go. The NAIA is not the organization it used to be, and even though the NCAA's enforcement of the financial aid rules can be befuddling, the NAIA really doesn't make any sense in regard to FA rules. The NCAA has the brand in the public eye, even though the reality is different from perception.

Nobody (except maybe the NESCAC-type schools) has the resources to start something new. At least we still have the Møbius strip

 

[gojackets]

Re: 2015 Frozen Four Finalists

I've seen (and complained about) that before. It is outrageous. The big boys would never miss another 10 mill or so to fund bigger fields for championships in D3, and maybe even end the silly "no fly zone" they try to enforce for the first two rounds in our sport.

The thing I don't get with the No-Fly policy. I remember when the UWS Softball team made the NCAA tournament a while back, their first round was in Washington State. How can they fly softball teams all over the country, but not hockey teams?

 

[Scott_TG]

Re: 2015 Frozen Four Finalists

The thing I don't get with the No-Fly policy. I remember when the UWS Softball team made the NCAA tournament a while back, their first round was in Washington State. How can they fly softball teams all over the country, but not hockey teams?

Softball teams need less gear and people. Less cost to fly them than a whole men's hockey team plus ensemble.

 

[NUProf]

Re: 2015 Frozen Four Finalists

The thing I don't get with the No-Fly policy. I remember when the UWS Softball team made the NCAA tournament a while back, their first round was in Washington State. How can they fly softball teams all over the country, but not hockey teams?

Reverse gender discrimination. Women's hockey teams have had more early round flights than the men.

 

[norm1909]

Re: 2015 Frozen Four Finalists

Reverse gender discrimination. Women's hockey teams have had more early round flights than the men.

Women tend to weigh less then men. Less cost to fly them than a whole men's hockey team plus ensemble.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2015 Frozen Four Finalists

Women tend to weigh less then men. Less cost to fly them than a whole men's hockey team plus ensemble.

but the toiletries weigh 3x more...

 

[norm1909]

Re: 2015 Frozen Four Finalists

but the toiletries weigh 3x more...

These are hockey players we are talking about not powder puffs...