Bob Svec wrote:
> I've cut out most of my earlier posting and Michael's explanation of how he
> computed the following table. We can argue back and forth about specific
> numbers but our differences would be relatively small so I'll accept most of
> his estimates for discussion sake.
>
> >
> >Where do we stand at this point? Assuming that Northwestern is an
> >average institution and based on the assumptions I have outlined above
> >we get:
> > Scholarships: $2,100,000
> > Coaches: $500,000
> > Travel: $300,000
> > Recruiting: $250,000
> > Medical: $350,000
> > Insurance: Who knows?
> > Overhead: $400,000
>
> Your assumption "that Northwestern is an average instiution" is grossly
> invalid. Northwestern, the only private school and is the most expensive
> college in the Big Ten. Tuition at most of the Big Ten universities is
> roughly $6000 - $10000 cheaper than at Northwestern (I assume you weren't
> trying to skew the data and it was just an error in picking Northwestern as
> "an average institution".) Thus your estimate of scholarship costs is
> anywhere from a half a million dollars to $850,000 too high for more
> typical conference schools. Also by picking Northwestern as your "average
> institution" you convieniently selected the school with the second smallest
> revenue in the Big 10.
I selected Northwestern because its the one I had the most up to date
data on tuition and expenses. In the paragraph quoted above, I may have
left a misimpression about my meaning of "average institution".
Throughout the rest of the analysis, that phrase was only used to
describe expenses such as travel and medical costs. Tuition is
obviously higher at Northwestern. Then again, a number of other Big 10
schools reported significantly lower expense than NU did, as well. The
difference in tuition might account for this. Or other underhanded
accounting practices.
> Even if you look at the situation at an expensive school like Northwestern,
> it is clear that football is a money making sport. If add $1,000,000 (ONE
> MILLION DOLLARS) or roughly 25% to your estimate for these other costs.
> Northwestern still made $2.7 million on football in 1995/96.
It is not clear that this is the case at all. I would venture that we
should at a lot more than $1,000,000 to the listed expenses total. I
was conservative on the items that I did analyze (In some cases such as
coaches' salaries, very conservative) and I did not figure in facilities
costs at all. Trust me, these are VERY expensive.
> You question the revenue data for NU and state that if the data is correct
> "they've put a lot of money into capital improvements". There is another
> more logical posibility...they may be funding non-revenue and women's sports
> with it.
Even if they use it to fund other sports, it still counts as football
revenue. My "capital improvement" quote has to do with the fact that I
don't think that they could produce revenue this high with Dyche Stadium
in the condition it was in when I was down there.
>
> I have no problem believing the facts as presented by USA TODAY. In most
> cases, the data for individual schools appeared to be consistent with
> tuition costs, stadium sizes, attendance and fan support not only for
> football but also for basketball, women's basketball and for other men's and
> women's sports.
You've said that you don't have much argument with the figures I
provided and that Northwestern understated their expenses. So, having
established that Northwestern lied on their expense figures, you still
have "no problem believing the facts as presented by USA Today"? How
many times do I have to point out that athletic departments LIE when
they discuss their own finances? I could do a similar analysis of other
schools expense figures. 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 numbers listed by the USA Today aren't even a good starting point to
begin the discussion. Each school uses a different accounting method
and does not list what items are included in the totals. As I said, the
whole question needs an independent accounting using standard methods.
>
> There is little doubt that for the large football schools money is being
> made to pay for women's and nonrevenue sports. Based on the data availble
> for the Mid American Conference, the smaller schools are probably losing
> money not only on football but throughout their sports program.
There is a lot of doubt that this is happening at most schools. Until
athletic departments move beyond providing obviously inaccurate numbers
in their own self-interest, I'll remain very sceptical.
J. Michael Neal
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
