[log in to unmask] wrote:
> You say, "Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong." What did the three major
> networks and ESPN pay the NCAA, the major conferences and individual schools
> in 1986 and in 1996? What is your source? The data by network would be
> interesting...please provide it if you have it. You also claim that, "Some
> of these self-production efforts actually lose money." I don't recall seeing
> any major conferences doing their own productions. Which major conferences
> are doing self-productions and which of these conferences are losing money?
> How much? Being a skeptic, it is hard for me to believe that the networks
> would allow a conference to do network programing. Which of the conference
> telecasts on ABC, CBS, NBC and ESPN being produced by the conferences and
> not the networks? What is your source?
What is my source? How about the credits that roll towards the end of
each game? It's broader than what Adam Wodon said. At least here in
Minneapolis, the CBS affiliate broadcasts a Big 10 game each Saturday
that runs opposite the Big 10 game shown on ABC. It's produced by Big
10 Productions, and as it tries to make money, it lowers the value of
the game on ABC (and the one on ESPN and the one on ESPN2 and the Gopher
game on MSC).
Why is it so hard for you to believe that a TV station would allow
someone else to do their programming? It happens all the time. The
best comparison to the in-house sports broadcasts are infomercials; the
principle is the same. The production company rents airtime from the
station to put on their programming. The only difference is that an
infomercial hopes to recoup its cost by selling its product and the
sports syndicate sells advertising just as if it were the station. It's
pretty much what the ill-fated Baseball Network a couple years ago was
about.
As to the specific point that some of these broadcasts lose money, I
don't have my reference handy. As I no longer have access to a
university library, it will be difficult to reacquire it. But the
general principle that TV revenues have taken a large drop is common
knowledge. Among other places, read Walter Byers' memoirs; after all,
he's the guy that negotiated a lot of these contracts. Also see Murray
Sperber's "College Sports, Inc."
> I have to agree with you Dave. I guess it is possible if the Athletic
> Department transfers those funds to the university's general fund. I've
> worked with state organizations and they are required by regulation or law
> to use prescribed accounting practices. Their books are audited both by
> internal and external auditors.
University athletic departments do not face the same kind of
requirements.
> Claims of laundering data without proof are
> simply that "claims" and not "facts". Even when they are repeated over and
> over they do not become fact.
>
> In an earlier comment on the same subject, Michael wrote, "With all of the
> football facilites dotting the Ann Arbor landscape, plus some other costs
> incurred along the way (such as having the team stay in an expensive hotel
> before every HOME game),
> Michigan's expenses are much greater than the figure listed."
>
> The USA TODAY study placed Michigan's revenues from football
> at......$16,866,465 and their expenses at....$4,772,343. Thus, their net
> revenue from football was $12, 094,122. According to The Daily, Michigan
> football donated $9,735,000 to the athletic department in 1995 which most
> likely was used for non revenue and women's sports. It looks like there may
> have been additional funds going to other parts of the university. The
> revenue figures look relatively small since admission revenues alone are
> roughly $2.5 million per game before a single hot dog, coke and program are
> sold or a penny is added from its bowl reciepts, TV and radio rights and
> other concessions.
Sigh. I don't even know where to begin with this set of comments.
First off, I'm not sure why you responded to my disbelief about
Michigan's stated expenses with a defense of their stated revenues.
Two, you've quoted two different newspapers and come up with different
numbers. The athletic department says they had a profit of $12 million
on footbal and the Daily says it was $9 million. So you assume that the
difference went to the university. This would be very interesting since
University of Michigan regulations (at least when I lived there) stated
that athletic department monies could not be transferred to the general
institution. They did this out of worries about corruption developing
from academic dependence upon athletic money. So your assumption is
wrong.
Three, your account of how revenue is generated betrays a lack of
knowledge. First off, gross ticket sales for Michigan football don't
make it to $2.5 million per game. They might if all of the seats were
sold for the price you or I would pay to get it, but they aren't. A
fair number aren't sold at all; they're given out as comps. Second a
large chunk of fans get their's at a discount. I don't know what
student tickets run these days (any Michigan students want to help me
out here?), but a decade ago they were roughly half price.
This is only the minor place you are in error, though. Michigan has to
split the gate with its opponent. To get a top quality non-conference
opponent to come to Ann Arbor can mean forking over $200,000 or more.
Conference games work under a revenue-sharing agreement; Michigan gets
killed on these if you take a home-and-home comparison. This is the
reason that in the Big 10's uneven schedule, Michigan didn't play
Northwestern so many times during the 1980s and early 1990s; the
athletic department didn't want to make the revenue sharing trade.
In the end, though, I will concede that Michigan makes money on
football. I doubt that it's anything like the subtraction of their
listed expenses from listed revenues would suggest, but it's still into
seven-figures. Unfortunately, there aren't very many schools with the
kind of revenue streams that Michigan has.
> What is your proof that these numbers have been laundered? You state that
> "most" schools do not include capital and facilities costs in these reports.
> To make that statement you must have a study to back up these sweeping
> claims and shows which schools do and which do not include these costs in
> their expenses. What is that study?
Bob, how many times do I have to answer this question before you stop
asking it? It's tiresome. I got it from "College Sports, Inc" and
Murray Sperber got it from "Revenues and Expenses of Intercollegiate
Athletic Programs" by Mitchell Raiborn. It is a survey and report
conducted by the NCAA itself in 1986 and 1990.
> Wouldn't the laundering of revenue
> and expense data and the use of "Fantasyland accounting" you accuse the
> universities of using be caught by either the internal or outside audits? I
> don't recall anyone being prosecuted for fraud. Or is this conspiracy to
> fake the financial records for college football so widespread that
> legislators, Boards Of Trustees, administrators , the faculty, the
> financial officers responsible for safeguarding public funds, and both
> internal and external auditors get together to fake financial records?
What conspiracy? Sometimes they're very up front about taking other
money. Purdue, for instance, was very public about the fact that they
took $3 million dollars from the general campaign fund in 1988 to build
a football practice facility.
As to your general question, though, most of these groups are involved.
Let's face it, in a lot of states and at a lot of schools, the
legislators and regents are more concerned with the sports program the
with the rest of the university. There is always the time that Texas
governor Bill Clements was implicated in the football scandal at SMU.
Or Huey Long's devotion to LSU football. Athletic departments are VERY
well connected. Here at Minnesota, the connections between Gopher
athletics and the downtown business interests are very incestuous. (The
name Pat Forceia comes to mind.) At many institutions, the football
coach or athletic director (sometimes the same person) wields
significantly more power than the president. Take a look at George
Perles' tenure at Michigan State for an example.
> I
> wonder if all of these people get together at a covention and decide how to
> to launder the data? :-)
No, but they do learn from each other.
> If proof isn't available, maybe someone, besides
> the accountants, is in FANTASYLAND.
You seem to have forgotten my look at Northwestern's expense statement.
Even you conceded that it looked as if they had undercounted. Would
you like me to do it with another school? The numbers provided by the
schools do not make sense. They have a motive to lie; a common sense
look at their numbers indicates that they DO lie; independent
investigations (Sperber, Sports Illustrated, Rick Telander, Richard
Sheehan) show that they lose money. What does this tell you?
Bob, what really bugs me about your post is that you keep insisting on
hard data, but aren't willing to provide any of your own. The only info
you've posted is a copy of the numbers that come directly from the
athletic departments themselves. To me, a cursory glance indicates that
these numbers are inaccurate. Either show me I'm wrong in my analysis
of these numbers, or come up with some other ones, or stop getting so
huffy about the whole hard data thing. I've given you a couple of
places to look. You can also try back issues of the Chronicle of Higher
Education. They have information on this topic, though often in less
detail than I would like.
I recommend Sperber's book as a good place to start. A more recent book
is Richard Sheehan's "Keeping Score". His claim is that about 30
football programs are making money, though most of them aren't making a
lot. The problem with this book is that I can't find it in the local
library and, despite it only being released last August, every bookstore
I've tried says that it's unavailable at the publisher. If you can find
a copy, let me know.
J. Michael Neal
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
