USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Niagara drops women's hockey!!
- Thread starter Nosdravi
- Start date
Re: Niagara drops women's hockey!!
What is the committment timetable for returning players with respect to scholarship dollars? Are they allowed to over-committ their 18 scholarships then retract as the season gets near? Doesn't seem to make sense unless NU players are paying full ticket.
Cali
What is the committment timetable for returning players with respect to scholarship dollars? Are they allowed to over-committ their 18 scholarships then retract as the season gets near? Doesn't seem to make sense unless NU players are paying full ticket.
Cali
The one I know that is going to Mercyhurst is far better than most of the incoming freshmen, not to mention the experience and leadership she can bring as a seasoned D1 player. If I were the freshmen, I'd be worried about where I fit in now.
Re: Niagara drops women's hockey!!
That may very well be the case but it goes to the integrity of the coach. Tough call as he will have to decide on getting better vs keeping a (financial??) promise to a recruit.
That may very well be the case but it goes to the integrity of the coach. Tough call as he will have to decide on getting better vs keeping a (financial??) promise to a recruit.
Oh, sorry. I didn't mean to imply that I think Coach Sisti would go (or can) go back on any financial commitment. I was merely talking about the team, who travels, who dresses, who plays etc. if he has the opportunity to bring in quality transfers, especially those who were left "out in the cold without a place to play" then I would think any coach would jump at that. I do NOT know, what if any financial assistance was provided to the transfers from NU. But having too many players will undoubtably cause some consternation amongst incoming players who ,ay be worried about ice time.
96IllinoisDad
New member
Re: Niagara drops women's hockey!!
Mercyhurst only had 17 skaters last year (Niagara, for example, had 20 skaters). Even if the entire group stays and all the 2012 commitments come in, they have 17 skaters for next year. Many teams carry 13F and 7D (20). With only 2 (sophomores) rising juniors on the roster, it would probably be pretty smart to add 2 top rising juniors - and Niagara has a couple decent ones.
Mercyhurst only had 17 skaters last year (Niagara, for example, had 20 skaters). Even if the entire group stays and all the 2012 commitments come in, they have 17 skaters for next year. Many teams carry 13F and 7D (20). With only 2 (sophomores) rising juniors on the roster, it would probably be pretty smart to add 2 top rising juniors - and Niagara has a couple decent ones.
PurpleEagles
New member
Re: Niagara drops women's hockey!!
Transfer update... Another Niagara player finds a home..... at Robert Morris!
Transfer update... Another Niagara player finds a home..... at Robert Morris!
Re: Niagara drops women's hockey!!
No, they don't. The extent to which they make money, football in particular, is vastly overstated. At most universities, the main source of funding for the athletic department is the school's general fund.
No, they don't. The extent to which they make money, football in particular, is vastly overstated. At most universities, the main source of funding for the athletic department is the school's general fund.
canadahockey26
New member
Re: Niagara drops women's hockey!!
Have you ever seen a good D1 college football game? Some teams fill stadiums larger than NFL stadiums. There is no way they don't make money.
Have you ever seen a good D1 college football game? Some teams fill stadiums larger than NFL stadiums. There is no way they don't make money.
Re: Niagara drops women's hockey!!
I grew up in Ann Arbor. Yes, I've seen big time D1 football. However, there aren't very many schools that draw like that. And you would be amazed at how bloated the expenses for big time football programs often are, and in many cases, the bigger the program, the bigger the bloat. All told, I'd bet that about 20 schools actually make money on football. After that, there are a lot of them that engage in funny accounting to make it look like they make money. The ongoing concentration of power in the hands of fewer and fewer schools is leading to more and more places that can't make money.
Here is my opening guess at schools that actually make money on football: Michigan; Ohio State; Penn State (although the upcoming legal costs of the Sandusky scandal could destroy decades worth of profits); Tennessee; Florida; Georgia; Alabama; LSU; Texas; Oklahoma; Nebraska; USC; Notre Dame; Florida State. Those I'm pretty sure about. I can come up with others that I suspect might be in, such as Auburn and Wisconsin. Then there is Oregon, which is a special case since Phil Knight has made it clear that he will buy them whatever they want.
Keep in mind that there are only 21 universities that have a home stadium with a capacity greater than 80,000 and only 21 schools (not all the same) had an average 2010 attendance above 70,000. For all of them, this is at ticket prices that are much lower then those charged by NFL teams. At the same time, the rights fees that TV networks pay all but the most desirable matchups has been in decline for about a decade. There are even some non-trivial contracts that, when you dig into the numbers involve schools and conferences effectively paying *out* money in order to be on TV.
The reality of the finances of college football is at odds with the perception.
I grew up in Ann Arbor. Yes, I've seen big time D1 football. However, there aren't very many schools that draw like that. And you would be amazed at how bloated the expenses for big time football programs often are, and in many cases, the bigger the program, the bigger the bloat. All told, I'd bet that about 20 schools actually make money on football. After that, there are a lot of them that engage in funny accounting to make it look like they make money. The ongoing concentration of power in the hands of fewer and fewer schools is leading to more and more places that can't make money.
Here is my opening guess at schools that actually make money on football: Michigan; Ohio State; Penn State (although the upcoming legal costs of the Sandusky scandal could destroy decades worth of profits); Tennessee; Florida; Georgia; Alabama; LSU; Texas; Oklahoma; Nebraska; USC; Notre Dame; Florida State. Those I'm pretty sure about. I can come up with others that I suspect might be in, such as Auburn and Wisconsin. Then there is Oregon, which is a special case since Phil Knight has made it clear that he will buy them whatever they want.
Keep in mind that there are only 21 universities that have a home stadium with a capacity greater than 80,000 and only 21 schools (not all the same) had an average 2010 attendance above 70,000. For all of them, this is at ticket prices that are much lower then those charged by NFL teams. At the same time, the rights fees that TV networks pay all but the most desirable matchups has been in decline for about a decade. There are even some non-trivial contracts that, when you dig into the numbers involve schools and conferences effectively paying *out* money in order to be on TV.
The reality of the finances of college football is at odds with the perception.
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
Re: Niagara drops women's hockey!!
The equation is more complicated than just ticket and TV revenue. Successful football programs can have value to universities in both donations and branding as well, and those are much harder to quantify.
Hux
Alfond to Ridder & rinks in between
Re: Niagara drops women's hockey!!
I think you can say that most of the programs in the major leagues (ACC, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10) make money. The BCS certainly sees to that. However, I agree that there are far more that are in the breakeven/lose money category. One of the reasons the NCAA imposed the moratorium on schools moving up to D1 was to prevent the siphoning of funds from the BCS (and to some extent the Hoop) coffers by newcomers that couldn't come close to breaking even, let alone profit.
I think you can say that most of the programs in the major leagues (ACC, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10) make money. The BCS certainly sees to that. However, I agree that there are far more that are in the breakeven/lose money category. One of the reasons the NCAA imposed the moratorium on schools moving up to D1 was to prevent the siphoning of funds from the BCS (and to some extent the Hoop) coffers by newcomers that couldn't come close to breaking even, let alone profit.
sbkbghockey
Registered User
Re: Niagara drops women's hockey!!
That comment was in response to why Wayne State put money into their football program... I said that football and men's basketball programs generally make the most money, not profit. At best most athletic departments break even. Texas and maybe a few other big schools like Ohio State, Florida, Michigan make a profit from athletic departments.
As ARM mentioned, the amount of money football and basketball programs bring to universities is complex and more than just ticket revenue along with that concessions, merchandise, etc... (which they do often have more of than most other sports). But football programs and basketball programs also bring more to the university in the forms of advertising, media dollars, and corporate sponsorships. Because there are drastic differences in the level of play in basketball and football, lower skilled teams and universities such as FCS football teams as well as DII and mid-major DI basketball teams can bring money back to the universities through payments from the larger schools to play a larger school, knowing that 90% of the time it will be a big loss on the road at the larger schools' home facilities. The exposure and prestige of certain sports, such as football and basketball can also bring the university money through tuition and student fees associated with increase in enrollment from students choosing a particular university because of the sports and atmosphere at those sports create. Because football and basketball are higher profile sports, universities tend to have an easier time supporting them, such as you said, through the general fund. A sport like women's hockey is very costly and does not give the university much exposure and prestige compared to sports like basketball and football.
That comment was in response to why Wayne State put money into their football program... I said that football and men's basketball programs generally make the most money, not profit. At best most athletic departments break even. Texas and maybe a few other big schools like Ohio State, Florida, Michigan make a profit from athletic departments.
As ARM mentioned, the amount of money football and basketball programs bring to universities is complex and more than just ticket revenue along with that concessions, merchandise, etc... (which they do often have more of than most other sports). But football programs and basketball programs also bring more to the university in the forms of advertising, media dollars, and corporate sponsorships. Because there are drastic differences in the level of play in basketball and football, lower skilled teams and universities such as FCS football teams as well as DII and mid-major DI basketball teams can bring money back to the universities through payments from the larger schools to play a larger school, knowing that 90% of the time it will be a big loss on the road at the larger schools' home facilities. The exposure and prestige of certain sports, such as football and basketball can also bring the university money through tuition and student fees associated with increase in enrollment from students choosing a particular university because of the sports and atmosphere at those sports create. Because football and basketball are higher profile sports, universities tend to have an easier time supporting them, such as you said, through the general fund. A sport like women's hockey is very costly and does not give the university much exposure and prestige compared to sports like basketball and football.
Re: Niagara drops women's hockey!!
No, you can't. As a benchmark, we know for a fact that the football team at the University of California-Berkeley loses money. If you take their stated profits and deduct things that are obviously football expenses but not included officially, such as the fact that the stated financing for their stadium upgrade doesn't pass the laugh test and that about $6-8 million should be added to their expenses, you end up in the red. (Financing costs are frequently offloaded onto either the athletic department generally or the university generally at many schools, though this is often obfuscated.)
Cal is roughly middle of the pack of BCS conference schools in a lot of ways. There are other ways in which it isn't, so the comparison is not terribly strong. But if Cal is losing money on football, then it's a stretch to argue that most BCS schools aren't.
One thing about the BCS payouts is that what you are seeing is the gross, not the net. As a part of going to a BCS game, schools are on the hook for a lot of tickets and a lot of hotel rooms. The University of Connecticut lost almost a million dollars by going to the 2011 Fiesta Bowl. They were required to buy 17,000 tickets and pay for 550 hotel rooms as a part of accepting the bid, and didn't sell most of these to its fans. Obviously, a school like Michigan won't have any trouble doing so, but there are a lot of programs, even in the BCS conferences, where that isn't a guarantee. That's aside from the basic travel expenses for the team and officials, which is deducted from the payout to the school's conference.
A part of the problem is that football is inherently an extremely expensive sport to put on, but another part is that schools insist on treating it as a bigger money maker than it is. As with Cal, most spend exorbitant sums on facilities that are not justified in any financial sense. There is a perception that you have to spend like the Michigans of the world in order to be able to recruit, but few schools will ever be able to recoup that spending. You also see enormous traveling parties to bowl games with lavish amenities that eat up dollars.
No, you can't. As a benchmark, we know for a fact that the football team at the University of California-Berkeley loses money. If you take their stated profits and deduct things that are obviously football expenses but not included officially, such as the fact that the stated financing for their stadium upgrade doesn't pass the laugh test and that about $6-8 million should be added to their expenses, you end up in the red. (Financing costs are frequently offloaded onto either the athletic department generally or the university generally at many schools, though this is often obfuscated.)
Cal is roughly middle of the pack of BCS conference schools in a lot of ways. There are other ways in which it isn't, so the comparison is not terribly strong. But if Cal is losing money on football, then it's a stretch to argue that most BCS schools aren't.
One thing about the BCS payouts is that what you are seeing is the gross, not the net. As a part of going to a BCS game, schools are on the hook for a lot of tickets and a lot of hotel rooms. The University of Connecticut lost almost a million dollars by going to the 2011 Fiesta Bowl. They were required to buy 17,000 tickets and pay for 550 hotel rooms as a part of accepting the bid, and didn't sell most of these to its fans. Obviously, a school like Michigan won't have any trouble doing so, but there are a lot of programs, even in the BCS conferences, where that isn't a guarantee. That's aside from the basic travel expenses for the team and officials, which is deducted from the payout to the school's conference.
A part of the problem is that football is inherently an extremely expensive sport to put on, but another part is that schools insist on treating it as a bigger money maker than it is. As with Cal, most spend exorbitant sums on facilities that are not justified in any financial sense. There is a perception that you have to spend like the Michigans of the world in order to be able to recruit, but few schools will ever be able to recoup that spending. You also see enormous traveling parties to bowl games with lavish amenities that eat up dollars.
Re: Niagara drops women's hockey!!
You mention a number of things that are often thrown out but almost never with any attempt to quantify them. Do you really think that there are more than a handful of schools that truly can charge significantly higher tuition because they play football? More, do you really think there are more than a handful of schools that can charge higher tuition because they subsidize football than they could if they invested those same dollars in academic programs? (The proper measure for something like this isn't that you receive more benefit than what you spend; it's that you both receive more benefit than you spend and more benefit than you would investing in the next best thing that you don't finance.) I'm extremely skeptical of that argument and would need to see some independent numbers on that before buying it.
The one argument of this sort that I'll buy is that you get more donations from alumni if you have a successful football team than if you don't. However, you have to remember that athletic success is zero sum. If your school wins more games, it means that someone else's school had to lose more. Thus, the increase in donations that you receive has to be judged against the donations that some other school does not if you want to assess how much money is made on football at schools in general. And given the way that every school is convinced that they can develop a better football program if only they do this and that, you end up with an arms race.
Of course, the most humorous thing about these arguments, albeit a very black form of humor, is that the NCAA and its member schools have argued repeatedly in court (you know, where they have to swear that they're telling the truth) that generating revenue is not in any way a significant function of its football programs, or any other sport. It's entirely an academic related exercise. That's the only way that they have been able to prevent athletes from being recognized as employees of the schools. If they had to treat the athletes as employees, why, they might be on the hook for Marc Buoniconti's medical expenses. Can't have that, or any number of other things that employees are entitled to.
So remember, any time you hear someone from an NCAA university athletic department talking about the need to raise revenue, you are listening to him accuse his own institution of perjury.
You mention a number of things that are often thrown out but almost never with any attempt to quantify them. Do you really think that there are more than a handful of schools that truly can charge significantly higher tuition because they play football? More, do you really think there are more than a handful of schools that can charge higher tuition because they subsidize football than they could if they invested those same dollars in academic programs? (The proper measure for something like this isn't that you receive more benefit than what you spend; it's that you both receive more benefit than you spend and more benefit than you would investing in the next best thing that you don't finance.) I'm extremely skeptical of that argument and would need to see some independent numbers on that before buying it.
The one argument of this sort that I'll buy is that you get more donations from alumni if you have a successful football team than if you don't. However, you have to remember that athletic success is zero sum. If your school wins more games, it means that someone else's school had to lose more. Thus, the increase in donations that you receive has to be judged against the donations that some other school does not if you want to assess how much money is made on football at schools in general. And given the way that every school is convinced that they can develop a better football program if only they do this and that, you end up with an arms race.
Of course, the most humorous thing about these arguments, albeit a very black form of humor, is that the NCAA and its member schools have argued repeatedly in court (you know, where they have to swear that they're telling the truth) that generating revenue is not in any way a significant function of its football programs, or any other sport. It's entirely an academic related exercise. That's the only way that they have been able to prevent athletes from being recognized as employees of the schools. If they had to treat the athletes as employees, why, they might be on the hook for Marc Buoniconti's medical expenses. Can't have that, or any number of other things that employees are entitled to.
So remember, any time you hear someone from an NCAA university athletic department talking about the need to raise revenue, you are listening to him accuse his own institution of perjury.
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
Re: Niagara drops women's hockey!!
Sorry, this has nothing to do with Niagara's program, so I'll stop now.
I'm not sure it is that black and white. If Texas has success in football, then Texas can solicit money from donors. If Texas A&M or Oklahoma has success in football, then Texas can still solicit money from donors. Because the donors want to win the arms race, they are almost more likely to give when they think they are behind. In theory, the money raised should not wind up in the wallets of any players, so never-ending supplies of cash shouldn't be needed to win, but perception is reality.
Sorry, this has nothing to do with Niagara's program, so I'll stop now.
Re: Niagara drops women's hockey!!
I know people that worked in donor relations at the University of Michigan, and they all say that the causation runs the other way. You get more donations when the football team is successful and fewer when the team isn't. The last few years have been hell for them. I told them that I was really, really broken up about that.
I know people that worked in donor relations at the University of Michigan, and they all say that the causation runs the other way. You get more donations when the football team is successful and fewer when the team isn't. The last few years have been hell for them. I told them that I was really, really broken up about that.
giwan
Really??!!
Re: Niagara drops women's hockey!!
You are correct based on some real data not just the stuff U's and maybe the NCAA will tell you. Winning makes people happy and happy people give more freely. Losing means you have to go out and ASK for it.
You are correct based on some real data not just the stuff U's and maybe the NCAA will tell you. Winning makes people happy and happy people give more freely. Losing means you have to go out and ASK for it.
sbkbghockey
Registered User
Re: Niagara drops women's hockey!!
I said nothing about schools charging more tuition because they have football, or any other particular sport. In fact some schools without football or with non-scholarship football (DIII) have much higher tuition than schools with DI football. All I said was that high profile sports can be used (either purposely or as an effect of having them) as a way to increase enrollment and therefore more tuition to the school from having more students. And there are schools and other institutions as well as sport feasibility companies that measure the complex money generating factors associated with college athletics. It's pretty simple when you think, I'm sure you and many others on here have some friends from high school that went to a particular school because they were fans of that school's high profile sports, such as football and basketball. In the cases such as Wayne State and Niagara, women's ice hockey will probably never have as much media attention, prospective student attention, ticket concessions merch sales, media revenue, corporate sponsorships, etc... as basketball and football. Combine that with hockey being an expensive sport and the tough economic times, and that's why we see schools dropping women's hockey for more cost effective sports such as Track (Niagara) or putting more money into football (Wayne State)
I said nothing about schools charging more tuition because they have football, or any other particular sport. In fact some schools without football or with non-scholarship football (DIII) have much higher tuition than schools with DI football. All I said was that high profile sports can be used (either purposely or as an effect of having them) as a way to increase enrollment and therefore more tuition to the school from having more students. And there are schools and other institutions as well as sport feasibility companies that measure the complex money generating factors associated with college athletics. It's pretty simple when you think, I'm sure you and many others on here have some friends from high school that went to a particular school because they were fans of that school's high profile sports, such as football and basketball. In the cases such as Wayne State and Niagara, women's ice hockey will probably never have as much media attention, prospective student attention, ticket concessions merch sales, media revenue, corporate sponsorships, etc... as basketball and football. Combine that with hockey being an expensive sport and the tough economic times, and that's why we see schools dropping women's hockey for more cost effective sports such as Track (Niagara) or putting more money into football (Wayne State)