At 10:28 PM 6/4/97 -0500, Eeyore wrote:
>Part of the reason the statements made are anecdotal is the fact that
>getting comprehensive and honest numbers from an athletic department is
>much the same as asking for them from the intelligence community. Right
>there, that ought to make one a bit suspicious.
I don't feel that anecdotal evidence makes your case at best it makes it for
the school are discussing. Is it valid to find some anecdotal evidence,
then smear the whole group with the same broad brush? For example, "getting
comprehensive and honest numbers from an athletic department is much the
same as asking for them from the intelligence community. Right there, that
ought to make one a bit suspicious." Maybe I'm getting cynical in my old
age but I find anecdotal evidence and smear tactics as poor substitutes to
facts.
>That said, there are some places to turn to. One of the best that I
>have found is Murray Sperber's "College Sports, Inc." It's about seven
>years old at this point, but the world hasn't changed that much. The
>first half of the book is about the finances of college sports and
>Sperber has done a good deal of digging through the records that are
>obtainable. Essentially, the answer is that athletic departments
>overstate revenues (or at least the projections thereof) and obfuscate
>on their expenses.
>
>If an honest accounting were done, I would suspect that there are only
>5-8 schools TOTAL in the country that consistently make money on
>football. There are any number of ways that schools use to hide costs.
> The largest (and one of the most common) is to shift the financial
>burden of the physical plant (usually the stadium, but often other
>pieces) onto some other area of the university. Purdue's practice
>facility took $3 million from the university's general donations fund in
>1988. There are other examples where one isn't quite sure where the
>money is coming from but it certainly doesn't add up to profit. Boston
>College spent $7 million dollars to add luxury boxes which it expected
>to rent for $340,000 a year. Try running the math on that one to see
>how they'll take to pay for themselves. Other examples abound, but
>they're often hard to find. On an NCAA internal survey, only a minority
>of schools were billed by their schools for such things as maintenance
>on the stadiums.
I'll agree that a good accountant can show that virtually all or none of the
programs are making money. But implying that football is the cause of many
of the problems in college sports or with Title IX and that it is a money
loser in all but the "5-8 schools TOTAL in the country that consistently
make money on
football" is not consistent with the published data. (See Below)
I have two questions about the "NCAA internal survey, only a minority of
schools were billed by their schools for such things as maintenance on the
stadiums." Are athletics departments being handled diffferently according
to that study than the drama department for the auditorium, the concert band
for the concert hall or practice area, the school newspaper for the office
space/ computers/printing presses or the various of university sanctioned
clubs and organizations for the space they use? If they are you have an
arguement, if not you don't. Is that "internal NCAA" survey on their web
page and when was it done? Would you please share the data from the
internal NCAA document?
>Your statement that football makes money at most of the schools in the
>big conferences is wrong. In the Big 10, football makes money at
>Michigan and maybe Ohio State and Penn State. That's it; the rest lose
>money.
The following data arefrom the Gender equity study that appeared in USA Today
Big Ten
School.........Foot. Rev....Foot. Exp....Bask. Rev....Bask.
Exp.
Illinois......$8,601,386...$3,645,136....$4,992,995...$1,650,467
Indiana........8,498,164....2,145,986.....6,142,915......683,077
Iowa..........10,187,818....2,672,233.....4,931,788......794,191
Michigan......16,866,465....4,772,343.....4,533,337......803,354
Mich.
State...10,648,778....3,163,900.....4,431,298......859,835
Minnesota......6,132,085....2,774,116.....4,230,217......919,136
Northwestern...7,697,618....3,951,692.....3,289,121....1,046,995
Ohio
State....13,217,661....2,974,108.....5,373,498......820,943
Penn
State....17,840,445....2,328,421.....3,044,999......818,800
Purdue.........7,670,812....5,005,180.....4,444,023....1,777,364
Wisconsin.....10,920,189....3,466,635.....4,528,978....1,261,659
School.........Wom. Bask. Rev....Wom. Bask. Exp.
Illinois..........$31,282............$739,079
Indiana.............8,795.............498,984
Iowa..............167,490.............581,320
Michigan............5,651.............591,871
Mich. State........69,091.............511,527
Minnesota..........33,078.............513,799
Northwestern.......26,970.............606,316
Ohio State........375,965.............688,413
Penn State........252,279.............643,667
Purdue............144,055.............868,682
Wisconsin.........321,013.............844,044
School........Other Men Rev. Men Exp....Other Wom.
Rev....Wom. Exp.
Illinois.........$15,202.....$1,611,609......$53,316......$1,803,415
Indiana...........63,689......1,991,020.......15,902.......2,072,812
Iowa.............149,069......1,949,780.......13,211.......2,539,129
Michigan.........973,796......3,329,909......136,129.......4,235,225
Mich.
State....1,400,366......2,625,090......189,490.......2,436,111
Minnesota......2,658,212......2,411,699.......75,382.......2,424,498
Northwestern......69,035......1,568,489.......48,647.......2,316,995
Ohio
State........85,340......2,925,242.......29,754.......3,172,123
Penn
State........98,771......1,649,575.......50,496.......1,962,702
Purdue............28,753......1,820,623.......51,529.......2,111,086
Wisconsin......1,556,973......3,186,685.......92,628.......2,519,447
You can argue about the data but until you put a more a more accurate and
comprehensive data, these are the best that I've seen and therfore am able
to use.
The interesting points are: all Big 10 schools are making money on football
and men's basketball and losing money on other men's and women's sports.
There are five universities with sizable revenue flows from other men's
sports: Iowa probably from wrestling and Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota
and Wisconsin probably from hockey. I would guess that Ohio State's
revenues will increase in a few years when they abandon their small rink and
start playing in their new 17000 seat arena.
Similar data is available if you are interested for other major conferences.
The results are similar...however, for the smaller conferences, a case can
be made that virtually all sports lose money.
AW wrote:
>Why must we go through this every time someone makes the claim that Arthur
>did?
> What he said is a fact. FACT. I don't have the data in front of me, but
for anyone >willing to look it up, it is true. All but about 5 football
programs
>lose money, period. Now, if you want to say that every athletic program loses
>money, and perhaps football LOSES LESS than the others, well, that I don't know
>-- but football loses money. That simple little comment IS a fact, like it or
>not.
>This isn't football bashing -- it's just a simple true statement. Go on and
>argue any other point that you want to argue -- but people should stop doubting
>the "football loses money" statement.
Why should people people stop doubting the "football loses money" statement?
Because you capitalize the word FACT? Because you make it ? Because it is
repeated over and over? Or because if someone says it is true that makes it
true? If you don't give the data to prove your case, why should anyone stop
doubting you?
>
>It's as bad as trying to prove to Flyers fans that Bobby Nystrom was NOT
>offsides. You can show them every videotape in the world, but they still don't
>believe it.
AW, I'm sorry but something isn't a fact just because something is said over
and over on a board. Let me see your data rather than your claims. Which
are the 5 programs making money? Post the comprehensive data or as an
absolute minimum the URL were it can be found. Your statements above are
"as bad as trying to prove to Flyers fans that Bobby Nystrom was NOT
offsides. You can show them every videotape in the world, but they still
don't believe it."
Let me finish with something on which we can all agree ...won't it be great
when the hockey season starts so we can discuss things like coaching
strategy, team performances and rankings rather than Title IX?
Bob Svec
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
