|
|
Post by JRGNYR on Sept 28, 2018 7:26:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Sept 28, 2018 7:27:54 GMT -5
Good for them. (Yawn.)
|
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Sept 28, 2018 8:16:25 GMT -5
I echo "good for them" but without any negative connotation. I will take our Jesuit brothers (and sisters) over Notre Dame any day. Holy Cross lost our opportunity to do this decades ago. We will remain a "small college on a hill."
|
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Sept 28, 2018 19:04:09 GMT -5
BC lags behind most of the rest of the ACC in spending on athletics. Out of 16 schools, BC leads only GA Tech and Wake in total revenue. Its men's sports revenue is second lowest.
School / Men's revenue / Total revenue / (Total expenses)
BC $42.9M / $74.6M ($74.6M)
Clemson $67.5M / $104.9M ($104.5)
Duke $76.3M / $100.5M ($100.1)
FSU $111.4M / $144.7M ($142.4)
Ga Tech $54.3M / $71.4M ($71.4)
NC State $63.2M / $85.2M ($84.1)
Syracuse $78.4M / $91.4M ($71.8M)
Louisville $87.1M / $122.4M ($120.4M)
Miami $49.4M / $89.1M ($89.1M)
UNC $67.4M / $90.5M ($90.4M)
ND $104.7M / $132.4M ($105.8M)
Pitt $58.7M / $84.8M ($84.8M)
UVa $43.3M / $93.0M ($92.6M)
Va Tech $63.9M / $80.8M ($80.8M)
Wake $38.7M / $67.0M ($67.0M)
Green means sports generates a significant profit, without need for the university to subsidize.. Red means athletics must be subsidized by the university (similar to HC)..
|
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Sept 30, 2018 18:14:08 GMT -5
What is the difference between men's revenue and total revenue? And wouldn't perhaps 74.6 m in revenue and 74.6 in expenses be a paper number only?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Oct 1, 2018 7:47:42 GMT -5
What is the difference between men's revenue and total revenue? And wouldn't perhaps 74.6 m in revenue and 74.6 in expenses be a paper number only? Total revenue is comprised of men's revenue, women's revenue, and revenue not allocated by sport. Broadcast revenue distributed by the conference often is included in revenue not allocated by sport. The revenues are further divided into generated revenue (e.g., ticket sales, booster donations) and non-generated revenue. Non-generated revenue is the subsidy by the school that covers the costs of a sport and/or the athletic program that is not paid for by generated revenue.. Three examples, Revenues / Expenses (in millions)
Notre Dame (does not subsidize)Football $96.9 / $33.3 M's Basketball $3.9 / $6.8 W's basketball $1.5 / $6.0 All other men's sports $4.0 / $16.2 All other women's sports $1.7 / $15.6 Grand total for all the athletic program $132.4 / $105.8 Football pays for the entire athletic program at Notre Dame, and why TPTB at Notre Dame have a vested interest in ensuring this continues to be the case. Boston College (partially subsidizes)Football $28.5 / $23.1 M's Basketball $6.8 / $6.2 (BC benefits from ACC broadcast revenues: Notre Dame hoops does not) W's basketball $0.5 / $3.6 All other men's sports $7.6 / $9.0 (Pretty certain these revenues include a subsidy) All other women's sports $13.8 / $13.8 (100% certain these revenues include a subsidy) Grand total for all the athletic program $74.6 / $74.6 When total revenues and expenses balance to the penny, that's a clear indication that the institution subsidizes the difference between generated revenues and expenses. Providence College (fully subsidizes)M's basketball $9.1 / $9.1 W's basketball $2.8 / $2.8 The basketball program at PC as well as all other sports are subsidized. |
|
|
|
Post by gks on Oct 1, 2018 8:01:17 GMT -5
What does Providence College athletic costs have to do with a capital campaign at BC?
Good luck to BC in their endeavor. Rising tides lift all boats and if BC is good and increases interest in college sports around New England all the power to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Oct 1, 2018 8:16:43 GMT -5
What does Providence College athletic costs have to do with a capital campaign at BC? Good luck to BC in their endeavor. Rising tides lift all boats and if BC is good and increases interest in college sports around New England all the power to them. The same could be said for why Notre Dame was included: to illustrate several examples of subsidy or lack thereof when it comes who is paying for a college athletic program. . |
|
|
|
Post by JRGNYR on Oct 1, 2018 8:19:12 GMT -5
Maybe, I'm in error but if the university is forced to subsidize the sports program, then that means athletics are losing money and, depending on the size of the subsidy, this could limit spending on athletics as the school is forced to take money out of the university general account. A healthier athletics program turns a profit which enables the program to spend more on salaries, facilities and recruiting thereby in all likelihood resulting in improved teams which should bring in more money. It seems to me that BC is at a disadvantage in comparison to the other ACC schools. BC is trying to get by and compete with less. They have to grow the athletics program and its revenue producing stream. And, I write this as someone who generally supports BC. LoveHC In most cases, the athletic programs lose money. Haven't found anything more recent but an NCAA report in 2015 showed that 24 FBS (e.g., I-A) earned revenues that exceeded expenses. At this time there are 130 FBS athletic departments. www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/athletics-departments-make-more-they-spend-still-minority |
|
|
|
Post by JRGNYR on Oct 1, 2018 8:54:43 GMT -5
Is my central thesis correct: That an athletics program that loses money and receives subsidies is in general at a disadvantage with other programs in its conference that turn a profit? Also, the fact that BC's expenditures on athletics are toward the bottom of the ACC has to be detrimental to the success of their teams. How can BC generate the needed increase in sports revenue?(I'm unable to access The Globe.) And, we are not even talking about the common academic compromises that are needed to compete at this level. It seems to me that BC and some various other big time athletics schools are trapped in this system and doomed to competitive mediocrity in athletics for the most part. Obviously in my view there is no way in this world that HC should, could or would ever want to compete in the big time college athletics world of highly emphasized sports with its constant financial arms race and academic compromises. LoveHC Your central thesis would make for a good graduate level paper in a sports management major. Hard to know for sure one way or another. A program could turn a profit because they kept expenses low but weren't necessarily competitive. On the flip side, a program could elevate expenses, become successful but require a subsidy from the university to cover the difference. Is program A more successful because or profit, or is B more successful because of on-field results? I'd say - it depends on the expressed goals of the program, which between A and B could be vastly different. And I don't think there is anybody saying that HC is looking to compete in big time athletics. I haven't seen that stated anywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by JRGNYR on Oct 1, 2018 9:26:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by gks on Oct 1, 2018 9:30:51 GMT -5
What does Providence College athletic costs have to do with a capital campaign at BC? Good luck to BC in their endeavor. Rising tides lift all boats and if BC is good and increases interest in college sports around New England all the power to them. The same could be said for why Notre Dame was included: to illustrate several examples of subsidy or lack thereof when it comes who is paying for a college athletic program. . Notre Dame is an anomaly. They should never be included when you compare athletic departments. |
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Oct 1, 2018 10:18:33 GMT -5
JRGNYR. I appreciate your response. I believe that Syracuse fits into the category of a program that turns a profit but has been mediocre in f-ball and b-ball in recent times. I realize that there has been no discussion about HC competing in big time athletics as it was a throwaway line based purely on our connection to HC. But, on second thought what about the desire by some for HC to join the BE in b-ball? Would joining the BE subject HC to the same type of pressures of big time competition at least in basketball?(This thought came to me as I was writing this post.) Thank you for your thoughtful and enlightening response. LoveHC Yes, the pressure to compete would be there just as it would have been in 1980. After a "honeymoon" period people would expect the team to be competitive. And the league would not just bring in a school out of the goodness of its heart without expecting the same. |
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Oct 1, 2018 10:52:22 GMT -5
Didn't HC do a review or launch a formal investigation into the athletics program? How's that working out?
|
|
|
|
Post by nhteamer on Oct 1, 2018 11:50:22 GMT -5
awaiting an update from Clark Boothe
|
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Oct 1, 2018 15:12:30 GMT -5
Is my central thesis correct: That an athletics program that loses money and receives subsidies is in general at a disadvantage with other programs in its conference that turn a profit? Also, the fact that BC's expenditures on athletics are toward the bottom of the ACC has to be detrimental to the success of their teams. How can BC generate the needed increase in sports revenue?(I'm unable to access The Globe.) And, we are not even talking about the common academic compromises that are needed to compete at this level. It seems to me that BC and some various other big time athletics schools are trapped in this system and doomed to competitive mediocrity in athletics for the most part. Obviously in my view there is no way in this world that HC should, could or would ever want to compete in the big time college athletics world of highly emphasized sports with its constant financial arms race and academic compromises. LoveHC The link below is to the audited financial statement for the University of Florida Athletic Association for 2013. Many of the Power Five public universities separate their athletic department from the rest of the university. The 2013 statement is perhaps the last that sets out revenue and expenses by sport in pernicious detail. Statements for more recent fiscal years greatly consolidate the information displayed. www.fa.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/ga/2013_University_Athletic_Assoc_Audited_FS.pdf^^^ Revenues by sport start on pdf page 44 Expenses by sport start on page 51 Scholarship costs by sport are on p. 65. As a public university, scholarship costs are substantially less than at a private college / university. Costs of tutors, counselors, academic advisers appear on p. 71. The link to the fiscal 2015 financial statement for Univ of Florida Athletic Association is below. www.fa.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/ga/2015_University_Athletic_Assoc_Audited_FS.pdfOn pdf p. 21, it indicates that the University of Florida athletic program lost about $8 million in fiscal 2015. The AD was 'bailed out' by a $20 million contribution from Gator Boosters, a non-profit, whose sole purpose is to collect and funnel money into the athletic department. (Think of the Crusader Athletic Fund being run separate from the BoT at HC, and collecting many millions more in dollars.) d81ldo19jx3e0.cloudfront.net/gatorboosters/img/about-us/financials/2016-17-Gator-Boosters-Inc-Financial-Statement.pdf^^^ The audited financial statement for Gator Boosters for fiscal 2017 I do not know why Gator Boosters exists as a separate entity from the Atlletic Department. __________________________________ As for BC, it is not exactly clear how the $150 million it hopes to raise for athletics would be spect. If, for example, $100 million was directed to an endowment for the athletic department, that would annually generate $4-4.5 million in additional revenue for athletics, which is a relatively small amount. |
|
