|
|
Post by cmo on Apr 2, 2020 9:07:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Apr 2, 2020 9:09:55 GMT -5
Fordham ??
Their average home attendance last season was 3408 in 5 games
|
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Apr 2, 2020 9:17:48 GMT -5
I agree. Something is fishy here. In 2018 (2019 not yet available) Fordham had average attendance of 3,964 or 23,781 for the season. I am guessing the school does not have a big TV contract. I doubt Fordham is getting $3,000+ per game ticket . Perhaps Fordham reported as revenue the subsidies that the school is giving to the program? |
|
|
|
Post by alum on Apr 2, 2020 9:33:45 GMT -5
The same report lists us at $5.6 million. How did we generate that? We show 276214 in attendance. Admittedly, we played at BC so that generated a few extra bucks. The data is almost meaningless unless we know how each school accounted for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Apr 2, 2020 9:34:18 GMT -5
The complete list was posted on AGS a few weeks back. The article loosely states that revenue may include program-specific donations. Basically these rankings mean nothing because if a school doesn't specifically itemize these donations and just pools them in a general athletic fund, it doesn't count as football revenue.
So no, Fordham did not generate more ticket revenue than North Dakota State for those who may be wondering.
What's interesting is the dearth of Ivy of HBCU on the list. One would think the host of the Harvard/Yale game would make the top 10 by default. Must be how these schools itemize donations.
Jackson State -- led FCS with 33K in attendance but not Top 25 in revenue.
Bucknell -- 14th in revenue ahead of NORTH DAKOTA STATE coming in at #15.
|
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Apr 2, 2020 11:01:50 GMT -5
I agree. Something is fishy here. In 2018 (2019 not yet available) Fordham had average attendance of 3,964 or 23,781 for the season. I am guessing the school does not have a big TV contract. I doubt Fordham is getting $3,000+ per game ticket . Perhaps Fordham reported as revenue the subsidies that the school is giving to the program? The problem is that the author of this article is a clueless idiot. Almost all FCS schools lose money on football - but are required to have revenue that at least matches expenses. So for almost all of them, they add a huge subsidy to the revenue side to balance it with expenses. That is the case with Fordham (and most others). Fordham just happens to have higher expenses than most - probably due to a combination of very high tuition plus high NYC expenses - which automatically means they will have higher "revenue" as well. Even JMU lost money in football and has a subsidy built into its revenue. The best thing to do with this article is to ignore it. |
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Apr 2, 2020 11:04:49 GMT -5
The same report lists us at $5.6 million. How did we generate that? We show 276214 in attendance. Admittedly, we played at BC so that generated a few extra bucks. The data is almost meaningless unless we know how each school accounted for it. It's even more meaningless after you know how the accounting works. The author of this piece was an idiot for publishing it. |
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Apr 2, 2020 11:16:39 GMT -5
This report is merde. Total merde. The reporter doesn't know how to read a Title IX report. The Title IX reports are derived from a school's annual revenue and expense report to the NCAA. Those NCAA reports distinguish between generated revenues and total revenues. Generated revenues include ticket sales, broadcast revenues, NCAA distributions, donations, endowment income. Generated revenues do not include a school's subsidy. The subsidy is included in total revenue. The Title IX reports do not distinguish between generated revenue and total revenue and include only total revenue. On p. 44 of this NCAA report, www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2019RES_D1-RevExp_Report_Final_20191107.pdfthere is a breakout of FCS schools revenue and expenses by quintile. HC is in the first quintile. For the schools in the first quintile, median generated revenue was $8.9 million, Expenses were $32.9 million. The schools made up the difference between generated revenue and expenses. For the schools in the first quintile, the median subsidy was $23.9 million. The subsidy is what brings total revenue and total expenses into balance. |
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Apr 2, 2020 11:22:44 GMT -5
The same report lists us at $5.6 million. How did we generate that? We show 276214 in attendance. Admittedly, we played at BC so that generated a few extra bucks. The data is almost meaningless unless we know how each school accounted for it. It's even more meaningless after you know how the accounting works. The author of this piece was an idiot for publishing it. I believe he is a graduate of Faulkner Univ, which isn't even a NCAA school. Don't expect much. |
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Apr 2, 2020 11:54:32 GMT -5
This report is merde. Total merde. The reporter doesn't know how to read a Title IX report. The Title IX reports are derived from a school's annual revenue and expense report to the NCAA. Those NCAA reports distinguish between generated revenues and total revenues. Generated revenues include ticket sales, broadcast revenues, NCAA distributions, donations, endowment income. Generated revenues do not include a school's subsidy. The subsidy is included in total revenue. The Title IX reports do not distinguish between generated revenue and total revenue and include only total revenue. On p. 44 of this NCAA report, www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2019RES_D1-RevExp_Report_Final_20191107.pdfthere is a breakout of FCS schools revenue and expenses by quintile. HC is in the first quintile. For the schools in the first quintile, median generated revenue was $8.9 million, Expenses were $32.9 million. The schools made up the difference between generated revenue and expenses. For the schools in the first quintile, the median subsidy was $23.9 million. The subsidy is what brings total revenue and total expenses into balance. I'm always amazed at how you are able to hunt down this information. I love the info on pages 41 & 42 showing how the different "quartiles" (I'm guessing big time football down to much smaller programs) derive their "revenue" (ticket sales, broadcast fees, student fees, subsidies, etc) and where the money goes. Of course, not all Quartile 1 schools are the same but for me it is very educational info. Thanks, as always |
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Apr 2, 2020 13:38:12 GMT -5
This report is merde. Total merde. The reporter doesn't know how to read a Title IX report. The Title IX reports are derived from a school's annual revenue and expense report to the NCAA. Those NCAA reports distinguish between generated revenues and total revenues. Generated revenues include ticket sales, broadcast revenues, NCAA distributions, donations, endowment income. Generated revenues do not include a school's subsidy. The subsidy is included in total revenue. The Title IX reports do not distinguish between generated revenue and total revenue and include only total revenue. On p. 44 of this NCAA report, www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2019RES_D1-RevExp_Report_Final_20191107.pdfthere is a breakout of FCS schools revenue and expenses by quintile. HC is in the first quintile. For the schools in the first quintile, median generated revenue was $8.9 million, Expenses were $32.9 million. The schools made up the difference between generated revenue and expenses. For the schools in the first quintile, the median subsidy was $23.9 million. The subsidy is what brings total revenue and total expenses into balance. I'm always amazed at how you are able to hunt down this information. I love the info on pages 41 & 42 showing how the different "quartiles" (I'm guessing big time football down to much smaller programs) derive their "revenue" (ticket sales, broadcast fees, student fees, subsidies, etc) and where the money goes. Of course, not all Quartile 1 schools are the same but for me it is very educational info. Thanks, as always Thanx for correcting my error. I saw five columns, and thought quintiles, when it was quartiles and a 'total.' The Division I subdivision group is Div I without football, e.g., Providence. As the NCAA report clearly illustrates, only those schools in what the NCAA categorizes as the Autonomy Five conferences (A-5) have a reasonable shot at financing their athletic program from generated revenues. Of the 350+ schools in all of Div I, only a tenth or less have sufficient generated revenue to break even, or realize a 'profit'. The median generated revenues for the top quartile in FBS (all A-5 schools, I'm certain) was $140+ million; for the top quartile in FCS (includes HC), it was <$9 million; for non-football Division I, for the top quartile, median generated revenue was $9 million. Only 29 of 65 A-5 schools had a 'positive bet return'; i.e., generated revenues equal to or exceeded total expenses. There may have been a very few schools in FCS and non-football Division I who achieved this 'profitability' as well, but the report does not indicate whether any did. |
|
