Any FCS school's making a profit?

[TTUEagles]

I know similar topics have been discussed on these threads, but I recently encountered a debate with someone about FCS football.
A guy told me that no FCS schools made a profit in 2006 (he cited some study, I'll post the link if need be) and that basically, if a lot of these schools (TTU, for example) dropped football, it would significantly impact the men's basketball program (which he is a bigger fan of, than football). He thinks basketball makes far more $$ than football and would continue to do so, no matter what football has success-wise. He states that some states, like FLA and ALA have better football facilities/budgets/profits/season tickets for their high school programs and that operating FCS football is futile. I tried to state that TTU playing the likes of K-state/Georgia, etc., directly impacts ALL of the school's programs, not just football. I think that football does contribute significantly to the school's budget, even if I concede that a lot of programs never make money (like the FBS schools in an earlier thread this month showed). Plus, the point of intercollegiate athletics isn't to make a profit, either. My question is: is there any data available out there showing economic impact of FCS football on their respective schools? Or any other data, showing that Men's basketball at the mid-major level, isn't such a cash cow either?
Thanks !

[93henfan]

I don't have the link, but short answer is yes, some FCS schools are making a profit.

[93henfan]

OK, here's the link: http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx

Delaware football, for an example, had revenue of over $6.7 million and expenses of $5.2M for the period 7/1/2007 - 6/30/2008. That's a profit.

Of course, you'll also see that football is the sugar daddy for all the other sports when you check the across the board figures.


Some other schools' revenues/expenses for that same period:

Montana - $6.1M/$4.3M
JMU - $4.1M/$4.1M
UMass - $3.8M/$3.8M
App State - $3.6M/$3.6M
UNI - $2.7M/$3.2M
Ga Southern - $1.8M/$2.2M

[TTUEagles]

Thanks! Great link!

[bluehenbillk]

Yep, this topic comes up about once a year. The previous link gets updated annually. Montana and Delaware are probably the only 2 schools that have shown to be consistently profitable. There are some other schools that will show profits, but the premise is right that most schools lose money, some lose 7 figures.

Mid-major hoops for most schools is a financial loser as well.

[HoyaMetanoia]

I'm not an accountant, but too many schools (including other schools not cited by the original poster) appear to have revenues that exactly match expenses. What bookkeeping tricks are behind that?

[DFW HOYA]

I'm not an accountant, but too many schools (including other schools not cited by the original poster) appear to have revenues that exactly match expenses. What bookkeeping tricks are behind that?

Some schools (particularly state schools) operate athletics on a break-even basis so that any gap between revenues and expenses is covered by a subsidy (student fees) that is considered "revenue". In that case, the amount of "revenue" will always meet the expenses.

[AmsterBison]

Yep, this topic comes up about once a year. The previous link gets updated annually. Montana and Delaware are probably the only 2 schools that have shown to be consistently profitable. There are some other schools that will show profits, but the premise is right that most schools lose money, some lose 7 figures.

Mid-major hoops for most schools is a financial loser as well.

Pretty sure that NDSU makes money on football.

[HIU 93]

Football makes a small profit at Hampton, but that profit is spent to maintain other sports. I think you will find that most FCS, Div. II, and Div. III schools don't make any profit on sports, period. There are the few, like Georgetown, for example, that play major conference Basketball, and make profit from the basketball team. However, the majority of schools who do not have a high profile basketball or football team do not make a large profit, if at all, on sports. College sports is big business, and if you are not a household name, you do not make money. Much like any other product, the big names are the one s that make money. For example, I have a frat brother who distributes his own brand of lemonade and teas. His stuff is much better than Lipton or Arizona, but Lipton and Arizona outprofit him a thousand fold because they are household names and you can get them everywhere.

[DetroitFlyer]

All of this "information" is self reported and as near as I can tell and NEVER audited, at least in any public manner. I do not trust much of this data. "Accounting" in the world of college athletics is dubious at best. I think that MANY schools paint the picture they wish to paint with these numbers. If you want to kill a football program, it will be consistently reported as losing money. If football is your thing, ( as in your basketball program stinks ), than the numbers tend to support a "profit".

This is kind of a useful reference page, but I believe that these numbers are not really all that clean and in some cases outright misleading....

[JMU DUUUKES LAW]

wow that site is addicting, i searched for schools i dont even care about for like an hour, haha

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

:o at our football budget deficit.

Oh well, one thing you can say for us is that we probably get more bang for our buck than just about every FCS program out there. xnodx

[henfan]

All of this "information" is self reported and as near as I can tell and NEVER audited, at least in any public manner. I do not trust much of this data. "Accounting" in the world of college athletics is dubious at best. I think that MANY schools paint the picture they wish to paint with these numbers. If you want to kill a football program, it will be consistently reported as losing money. If football is your thing, ( as in your basketball program stinks ), than the numbers tend to support a "profit".

This is kind of a useful reference page, but I believe that these numbers are not really all that clean and in some cases outright misleading....

It is true to some extent and in some cases that EADA data doesn't provide an accurate portrayal of the finances of particular programs. According to Dept. of Ed. regulations, EADA financial figures must indeed be audited by an independent account before being submitted to the NCAA. The problem is the general lack of standardization in reporting. However, if you examine EADA reports over the long term, it's not too difficult to determine which schools may not be accurately reporting numbers. For example, schools whose revenues and expenses match exactly or are way out of line with their peers definitely cast some doubt.

Still, until every school opens their books to the public, EADA figures present the most accurate picture of athletic financing for purposes of comparison.

[Ivytalk]

I thought I read somewhere that Yale is the only Ivy school that makes money on football. I could be wrong. bulldog10jw?

[tribe_pride]

The other thing that does not get reported I believe (for some reason that page wouldn't open for me) is how much money in alumni support the schools are getting because of the football programs. I know that the FCS schools won't get as much as a Florida or Michigan but I have to believe that a certain amount alumni support at each school is solely because of the football programs.

[danefan]

But here's the issue I see with these numbers, and perhaps its just an issue when I look at Albany's numbers:

Grand total revenue ($13,226,608) is equal to Grand Total Expenses ($13,226,608).
The only way I can make sense of these numbers is that the "Revenue" reported here is includes both revenue generated by the athletic department as well as the revenue derived from the University Budget.

So if the Athletic Department derives $2 million a year in ticket sales, advertising, merchandise, etc..., and shows a total Revenue of $13,000,000, the difference is actually just money being allocated from the University Budget over to the Athletic Department. So in essence, in my example, athletics cost the University $11,000,000 a year.

Am I right here?

If so, these figures are just a numbers game and don't give the real indication of how much each program makes.

[bison137]

OK, here's the link: http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx

Delaware football, for an example, had revenue of over $6.7 million and expenses of $5.2M for the period 7/1/2007 - 6/30/2008. That's a profit.

Of course, you'll also see that football is the sugar daddy for all the other sports when you check the across the board figures.


Some other schools' revenues/expenses for that same period:

Montana - $6.1M/$4.3M
JMU - $4.1M/$4.1M
UMass - $3.8M/$3.8M
App State - $3.6M/$3.6M
UNI - $2.7M/$3.2M
Ga Southern - $1.8M/$2.2M


I would be VERY cautious about using this site to draw any profit/loss conclusions. To begin with, there is no consistency as to the definitions of what is a sport-specific expense. Various schools categorize it in different ways. Also, many schools simply take money out of some non-sport funding source and call it athletic revenue. Additionally, some athletic expense at some schools gets transferred into general non-athletic categories.

[bison137]

But here's the issue I see with these numbers, and perhaps its just an issue when I look at Albany's numbers:

Grand total revenue ($13,226,608) is equal to Grand Total Expenses ($13,226,608).
The only way I can make sense of these numbers is that the "Revenue" reported here is includes both revenue generated by the athletic department as well as the revenue derived from the University Budget.

So if the Athletic Department derives $2 million a year in ticket sales, advertising, merchandise, etc..., and shows a total Revenue of $13,000,000, the difference is actually just money being allocated from the University Budget over to the Athletic Department. So in essence, in my example, athletics cost the University $11,000,000 a year.

Am I right here?

If so, these figures are just a numbers game and don't give the real indication of how much each program makes.



You are correct.

[jmufan999]

wow, i'm surprised. we're only breaking even? ugh. i mean, it's better than losing money, but still disappointing.

[bluehenbillk]

You have to take a common sense approach to financials with college football. The #1 derivative in profitability is attendance. Most knowledgeable fans will know who in their league draws and who doesn't. The next step off that is how many people in the stadium are paying, paying for tix, paying to park, buying concessions, merchandise, etc. There are places that have 50pct or more students, which aren't going to be conducive to profit making. Same thing with those schools that paper the house with comp or drastically price reduced tickets.

[Franks Tanks]

I would be VERY cautious about using this site to draw any profit/loss conclusions. To begin with, there is no consistency as to the definitions of what is a sport-specific expense. Various schools categorize it in different ways. Also, many schools simply take money out of some non-sport funding source and call it athletic revenue. Additionally, some athletic expense at some schools gets transferred into general non-athletic categories.

Right-- we have no consistent accounting practices as far as I can tell. No definition of what counts as an expense and what counts as revenue. For example there is an annual expense to maintain a FB stadium, and that is an expense that is directly related to having a football program. Are those expenses captured in these numbers? Perhaps yes for some and no for others. Some may consider that a football expense and others a general university or athletic department expense. Without clear guidelines these numbers are only directional.

[HoyaMetanoia]

Right-- we have no consistent accounting practices as far as I can tell. No definition of what counts as an expense and what counts as revenue. For example there is an annual expense to maintain a FB stadium, and that is an expense that is directly related to having a football program. Are those expenses captured in these numbers? Perhaps yes for some and no for others. Some may consider that a football expense and others a general university or athletic department expense. Without clear guidelines these numbers are only directional.

Exactly. Look at Georgetown's football revenues and expenses. While I know we don't spend much, I'm sure we don't earn much.

[carney2]

wow, i'm surprised. we're only breaking even? ugh. i mean, it's better than losing money, but still disappointing.

One more time - and before you slit your throat - you cannot put any credence in these numbers. None. Zero. Zilch. There are no standards. There are no common definitions. There are no reporting guidelines. Each school is largely on its own with its own agenda.

Even with all of that, I would be very surprised if more than a small handful of FCS institutions are consistently "making money" off of football. Consider:

REVENUES

Gate receipts: Your average attendance minus student attendance @ student rates (frequently free) X the average ticket price (not huge at many schools). Then add in the fees/gate receipts from students.

Plus: Concessions and parking (Parking is frequently free at FCS schools)

Plus: "Money game" revenues from FBS schools (what % of FCS schools can count on these?!)

Visiting team guarantees: Not big in FCS

TV/Radio revenues: Minimal to non-existent at most FCS schools

Playoff receipts: Only 16 schools per year get any of this.

EXPENSES

Scholarships/equivalencies/whatever: This is where much of the fudging goes on in the numbers being bandied about in this thread.

Coaches/support staff salaries and benefits

Insurance.

Uniforms and equipment.

Facilities maintenance and upgrades

Travel, meals

The list on the expenses side is endless and really adds up quickly. Besides, even those "making money" find that the more they have, the more they spend.

If you're in FCS football for the bucks you're an idiot.

[ASUG8]

Seems a little odd that ASU leads the country with football attendance averages followed closely by Montana, yet we're at a breakeven vs. UM's "profit". There has to be some funky accounting tricks going on (BTW - couldn't get to the site, just looked at 93Hen's post).

Carney - I agree with most of what you posted. I know student fees subsidize athletics to some extent along with alumni solicitation and athletic clubs.

[SunCoastBlueHen]

Seems a little odd that ASU leads the country with football attendance averages followed closely by Montana, yet we're at a breakeven vs. UM's "profit". There has to be some funky accounting tricks going on (BTW - couldn't get to the site, just looked at 93Hen's post).

Carney - I agree with most of what you posted. I know student fees subsidize athletics to some extent along with alumni solicitation and athletic clubs.

I believe it is possible that ASU is actually making money on football, but the cash is flowing the opposite direction as some schools reporting break even that are actually losing money. IOW, any profit ASU is making may be reflected as a break even expense on the football books back into the athletic budget pool.

[henfan]

One more time - and before you slit your throat - you cannot put any credence in these numbers. None. Zero. Zilch. There are no standards. There are no common definitions. There are no reporting guidelines. Each school is largely on its own with its own agenda.

That's a bit of hyperbole there, Carney. There are indeed reporting definitions and guidelines and even some degree of standardization.

Some believe that the biggest problem results from not enough of the process being defined or standardized. In fairness, the NCAA's ongoing effort to improve EADA reporting has met some resistance from member schools.

As I've said many times before here and elsewhere, EADA numbers are more valuable if you are able to examine the EADA Worksheets to see what has and hasn't been included in the calculations. The problem is that the EADA reg was written to exclude the Worksheets from the public reporting process.

[bostonspider]

Well then there are other "revenues" for some schols. I know that at UR all the scholarships were at one time endowed, so that those "expenses" were already taken care of. Now UR's tuition has increased greatly, so I am not sure if the endowment covers the expenses anymore, but I do know that UR has an athletic endowment of over 100 million, so I am not sure how that affects our "revenue".

[bluehenbillk]

In the accounting world it shouldn't matter if the scholarships are endowed or not. Because you're spending endowment money it should be considered an expense.

Rule#1: There's a credit for every debit.

[nmatsen]

For UNI to have lost money in 07' is either A. F'd up accounting, or B. Poor money management.

Our assistants get paid dick, we bussed to all but 2 games that year. We sold out every game except Minnesota State (about 750 people under capacity) and played at Iowa State that year (we won, thanks for the $400,000) and had no expenses other than our bus ride.

If we lost $500,000 that year then someone needs to be held accountable.

[Jackman]

When comparing attendance, don't forget to factor in ticket prices. Delaware has much higher average ticket prices than UMass does, for example. They also charge for parking. Bottom line is we'd need to have about twice their attendance to generate the same revenue, and our stadium doesn't even hold their current amount.

I would be skeptical of anyone besides Delaware and Montana claiming that they make a profit from FCS football. ASU I could believe is close to breaking even, maybe.

[EmeryZach]

OK, here's the link: http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx

Delaware football, for an example, had revenue of over $6.7 million and expenses of $5.2M for the period 7/1/2007 - 6/30/2008. That's a profit.

Of course, you'll also see that football is the sugar daddy for all the other sports when you check the across the board figures.


Some other schools' revenues/expenses for that same period:

Montana - $6.1M/$4.3M
JMU - $4.1M/$4.1M
UMass - $3.8M/$3.8M
App State - $3.6M/$3.6M
UNI - $2.7M/$3.2M
Ga Southern - $1.8M/$2.2M

That UMass stat is a lie. I know for a fact that in 2007 the football team was running at over a $3 Million deficit .

[Jackman]

Depends on how you do the accounting, EmeryZach. When those stories were written about UMass being one of the biggest money losers in FCS, it was because, unlike everyone else, we weren't including things like student fees in the "revenue" column. Which is how it should be, but not how the competition was doing it, so we looked terrible. Now we're telling the same lie as everyone else, and not a moment too soon given the economic pressures.

[henfan]

Part of UMass' deal too has always been to undersell its FB revenues to lend fuel to the argument that the school needed a I-A program. The line of argument going back to the Bob Marcum era and beyond was that UMass would lose less money playing in I-A. That speculation might be true; however, given UMass' attendance and level of support in recent years, it's hard to imagine that they are losing the kind of money on FB that they claim. Unless the program is seriously mismanaged, there's just no way that's happening. And if their administration has been so poorly run that they've lost $3M per year on FB despite favorable attendance, then one has to wonder whether the school is capable of operating a profitable FBS program.

BTW, there is absolutely no way that App State isn't making a considerable amount of money on FB with avg. attendance well over capacity.

[Green Cookie Monster]

Out of a $15M athletic budget, Sac State earned $2.3M and had expenses of $2.1M.

Looks we we turned a profit.

[bison137]

Out of a $15M athletic budget, Sac State earned $2.3M and had expenses of $2.1M.

Looks we we turned a profit.


Can't really tell. You have $6,380,819 of "general expenses" not categorized by sport. Can't tell how much of that is attibutable to football.

In total, Sacramento State - like almost all colleges - lost money on athletics.

[bison137]

OK, here's the link: http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx

Delaware football, for an example, had revenue of over $6.7 million and expenses of $5.2M for the period 7/1/2007 - 6/30/2008. That's a profit.

Of course, you'll also see that football is the sugar daddy for all the other sports when you check the across the board figures.


Some other schools' revenues/expenses for that same period:

Montana - $6.1M/$4.3M
JMU - $4.1M/$4.1M
UMass - $3.8M/$3.8M
App State - $3.6M/$3.6M
UNI - $2.7M/$3.2M
Ga Southern - $1.8M/$2.2M



As I mentioned in my other post, none of these necessarily mean that a college made a profit on football.

Delaware, for example, also has $12,170,024 in "general expenses" not assigned to any particular sport. Until you know how much of this $12+ million, if any, is attributable to football you really can't determine profit/loss.


All we know for certain is that Delaware - like almost all colleges - lost money on athletics in total.

[Scumdog0331]

I'm pretty sure "general expenses" are things that all sports can use. An example would be the athletic director's salary. Facility maintenance is another, telecommunication bills, ext...

[danefan]

I'm pretty sure "general expenses" are things that all sports can use. An example would be the athletic director's salary. Facility maintenance is another, telecommunication bills, ext...

Yes, but under general accounting principles each sport would get an allocated shair of those expenses. Say for example that football has offices for 10 coaches and a 15,000 seat stadium. Say it costs $2 million a year to maintain those facilities. Its more than likely that those expenses are lumped into "general expenses" as the grounds and maintenance crew isn't going to split their time and expenses by sport. But in reality they are only football specific.

[CRAZY_DANE]

I hate these stories primarily because it's a half truth used to bash football. Dollars are easy to account for but where do you put owners equity? By which I mean the intangibles.


Increased school pride
Increased name recognition
Increased recruiting


Also, where do you factor in the economic impact to the community? If 15,000 fans show up a game, many will stay in hotels, eat in restaurants and buy souvenirs. Is this factored in these studies?

[henfan]

I hate these stories primarily because it's a half truth used to bash football. Dollars are easy to account for but where do you put owners equity? By which I mean the intangibles.

Exactly right. If college football was in fact such a revenue drain, such a negative for college communities, so many simply wouldn't sponsor the sport. xthumbsupx

[Silenoz]

Seems a little odd that ASU leads the country with football attendance averages followed closely by Montana, yet we're at a breakeven vs. UM's "profit". There has to be some funky accounting tricks going on (BTW - couldn't get to the site, just looked at 93Hen's post).

Carney - I agree with most of what you posted. I know student fees subsidize athletics to some extent along with alumni solicitation and athletic clubs.

We're just that awesome

[mvemjsunpx]

Seems a little odd that ASU leads the country with football attendance averages followed closely by Montana, yet we're at a breakeven vs. UM's "profit". There has to be some funky accounting tricks going on (BTW - couldn't get to the site, just looked at 93Hen's post).

Montana's tickets sell for a bit more than App State's. (hence the large difference in revenue). App sells a lot of cheap tickets for the ground around the track, don't they? The vast majority of UM's ticket sales are from season tickets which cost a lot more on average.

[Cobblestone]

I thought I read somewhere that Yale is the only Ivy school that makes money on football. I could be wrong. bulldog10jw?

I think with Ivy League endowments and donations being what they are from some of the wealthiest alumni bodies in the country that every Ivy team makes money in the long run.

[asu70]

[QUOTE=mvemjsunpx;1316328]Montana's tickets sell for a bit more than App State's. (hence the large difference in revenue). App sells a lot of cheap tickets for the ground around the track, don't they? The vast majority of UM's ticket sales are from season tickets which cost a lot more on average.[/Q
App sells no cheap tickets, you pay 25 for the fifty as well as 25 for the south bank. The only difference is you do not have to give at a yosef level with a high rank to sit on the bank.

[mcveyrl]

I know similar topics have been discussed on these threads, but I recently encountered a debate with someone about FCS football.
A guy told me that no FCS schools made a profit in 2006 (he cited some study, I'll post the link if need be) and that basically, if a lot of these schools (TTU, for example) dropped football, it would significantly impact the men's basketball program (which he is a bigger fan of, than football). He thinks basketball makes far more $$ than football and would continue to do so, no matter what football has success-wise. He states that some states, like FLA and ALA have better football facilities/budgets/profits/season tickets for their high school programs and that operating FCS football is futile. I tried to state that TTU playing the likes of K-state/Georgia, etc., directly impacts ALL of the school's programs, not just football. I think that football does contribute significantly to the school's budget, even if I concede that a lot of programs never make money (like the FBS schools in an earlier thread this month showed). Plus, the point of intercollegiate athletics isn't to make a profit, either. My question is: is there any data available out there showing economic impact of FCS football on their respective schools? Or any other data, showing that Men's basketball at the mid-major level, isn't such a cash cow either?
Thanks !

Most FCS schools are losing money on football. I frankly don't care if JMU loses money on football. There are intangible (and tangible, such as alumni donations)benefits of football that make up for the losses.

On top of that, I would guess that the football team operates at less of a defcit to revenue ration than a lot of other sports on campus (not that this matters...losing money is losing money).

As to the basketball point, I will use an example I'm all too familiar with, ETSU. ETSU dropped football with the stated intent of raising up their basketball programs. But then, oops, got dropped by the SoCon. Found the A-Sun and just now won the A-Sun tournament this year.

Many ETSU fans were pissed when they dropped football (I know several alums who refused to donate after that). Then, the fact that they weren't dominating the A-Sun added to the frustration exponentially.

This past week, during the A-Sun tournament, the local radio sports talk show was lit up with callers bemoaning the A-Sun and wanted to get back in the SoCon. The response from the hosts was probably accurate: "Where else are we going to go without football?"

And of course, we all know what happened when ETSU tried to revive football this past year. Probably makes everybody wish they had just kept it and found a way to absorb the losses.

[DetroitFlyer]

Sounds like it is time for an A-Sun, non-atheltic scholarship football conference to me....

[kirkblitz]

ccu made like 300k

[CarolinaGirl]

ccu made like 300k

I know you pride yourself on stats. Please provide for this figure. When did CCU make 300k?

[kirkblitz]

I know you pride yourself on stats. Please provide for this figure. When did CCU make 300k?


http://www.osa.state.sc.us/NR/rdonlyres/6AEBB48F-234E-4AE1-BAF5-27C4E514DF98/0/H1708NCAA.pdf
closest i can find to a income summary for our athletics program

page 10

329,082

[Native]

Thanks for the interesting web site link! xnodx

Apparently Weber State football brought in $1.5M and spent $2.1M in 2008, so I suppose that's a loss of $600k. :(

However, overall athletic revenues matched overall expenses, and it is unclear how much of the $4.5M in revenues listed as "not allocated by gender/sport" is from donors to the Wildcat Club and how much from the school budget. xconfusedx

So it is theoretically possible that WSU football could have broken even or even made a small profit. xeyebrowx

Still a far cry from the Montana money machine! xbowx

[T-Dog]

I believe it is possible that ASU is actually making money on football, but the cash is flowing the opposite direction as some schools reporting break even that are actually losing money. IOW, any profit ASU is making may be reflected as a break even expense on the football books back into the athletic budget pool.

Indeed. That site is just going by what's published in financial reports. The App numbers are accurate for what's reported but there's no way we broke even. Probably revenue sharing with the other sports that don't make any money.

I mean, for 2007, we were reported to break even, and there's NO WAY we finished in the red/even that year.

We made at least a half million for each home game this past season. That's $3 millions right there. Throw in the amount the NCAA doesn't take away from the two home playoff games, the $750,000 from LSU and that's at least $4 million right there, more than the $3.6 million reported.

[Grizo406]

I think I see a few extra dollars...

http://www.billingsgazette.net/h/blogs/catgriz/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/washgriz1.jpg

[SoCon48]

Montana's tickets sell for a bit more than App State's. (hence the large difference in revenue). App sells a lot of cheap tickets for the ground around the track, don't they? The vast majority of UM's ticket sales are from season tickets which cost a lot more on average.

No, the grass "seats" around the track sell for exactly the same as the reserved seats. There's a lot of money generated when tickets are sold beyound stadium capacity for four or five years running..

[turfdoc]

When I was at UNI in the 90's a private PR and accounting firm were hired to do an audit of the "intangible" value of the football program. They found that while losing money the "value" to the university far outweighed the costs of the program. One person working on the study said the reduction in donations to the university if football was dropped would more than outweigh the operational losses. That is independent of the "intangibles" such as awareness and pride within the UNiversity.

That being said proof f this can be best shown when looking at the application numbers when UNI beats Iowa State in football. Since it has happen a few times, it is pretty consistent trend that when UNI beats ISU, applications go up. So do donations. Making the NCAA tournament in Basketball has a similar effect but it happens less often and the effect is not as great.

I can not think of a single advertising department in a company that "actually" makes a profit. Still try to make a profit without advertising.

[jmufan999]

One more time - and before you slit your throat - you cannot put any credence in these numbers. None. Zero. Zilch. There are no standards. There are no common definitions. There are no reporting guidelines. Each school is largely on its own with its own agenda.

Even with all of that, I would be very surprised if more than a small handful of FCS institutions are consistently "making money" off of football. Consider:

REVENUES

Gate receipts: Your average attendance minus student attendance @ student rates (frequently free) X the average ticket price (not huge at many schools). Then add in the fees/gate receipts from students.

Plus: Concessions and parking (Parking is frequently free at FCS schools)

Plus: "Money game" revenues from FBS schools (what % of FCS schools can count on these?!)

Visiting team guarantees: Not big in FCS

TV/Radio revenues: Minimal to non-existent at most FCS schools

Playoff receipts: Only 16 schools per year get any of this.

EXPENSES

Scholarships/equivalencies/whatever: This is where much of the fudging goes on in the numbers being bandied about in this thread.

Coaches/support staff salaries and benefits

Insurance.

Uniforms and equipment.

Facilities maintenance and upgrades

Travel, meals

The list on the expenses side is endless and really adds up quickly. Besides, even those "making money" find that the more they have, the more they spend.

If you're in FCS football for the bucks you're an idiot.

why did you quote me? i used the word "disappointing", not "devastating". where is all this "slit your throat" nonsense coming from?

[kirkblitz]

I think I see a few extra dollars...

http://www.billingsgazette.net/h/blogs/catgriz/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/washgriz1.jpg


? where?

[CarolinaGirl]

http://www.osa.state.sc.us/NR/rdonlyres/6AEBB48F-234E-4AE1-BAF5-27C4E514DF98/0/H1708NCAA.pdf
closest i can find to a income summary for our athletics program

page 10

329,082

that is an interesting site. I guess I had football specifically in my mind on this topic. Thus, my skeptism that Coastal made that much :p

[Montanan]

http://www.billingsgazette.net/h/blogs/catgriz/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/washgriz1.jpg


? where?

http://www.goccusports.com/chantspics/brooksstadiumopeninggame.jpg

? where?, that's a good one kirkblitz!xlolxxnodxxlolx

[Husky Alum]

In the accounting world it shouldn't matter if the scholarships are endowed or not. Because you're spending endowment money it should be considered an expense.

Rule#1: There's a credit for every debit.

Tell that to Ken Lay and Bernie Madoff.

I've spent a ton of time with the EADA numbers.

In some states the numbers are actually audited, by statute the Athletic Department has to have an audit done.

I believe the numbers from other schools are "subject to audit" - which means as long as they're in the books and records of the company that are audited as part of a financial statement audit taken as a whole, they're considered "audited" - while procedures and tests may not have been audited in and of itself - in fact, as part of a college's audit, they may not have been verified at all - hence the concept of sampling in an audit.

Thus ends Husky Alum's "EADA Accounting for Dummies".

[Husky Alum]

When I was at UNI in the 90's a private PR and accounting firm were hired to do an audit of the "intangible" value of the football program. They found that while losing money the "value" to the university far outweighed the costs of the program. One person working on the study said the reduction in donations to the university if football was dropped would more than outweigh the operational losses. That is independent of the "intangibles" such as awareness and pride within the UNiversity.

That being said proof f this can be best shown when looking at the application numbers when UNI beats Iowa State in football. Since it has happen a few times, it is pretty consistent trend that when UNI beats ISU, applications go up. So do donations. Making the NCAA tournament in Basketball has a similar effect but it happens less often and the effect is not as great.

I can not think of a single advertising department in a company that "actually" makes a profit. Still try to make a profit without advertising.

How can you audit something like the opportunity cost of dropping football?

Sounds like an economic analysis, not a financial statement audit.

You can audit the value of an intangible asset, but you can't audit the intrinsic value of a football team, as there are many independent variables that are simply not auditable.

Thus Ends Husky Alum's course #2 on EADA Accounting for Dummies.

[centexguy]

When I was at UNI in the 90's a private PR and accounting firm were hired to do an audit of the "intangible" value of the football program. They found that while losing money the "value" to the university far outweighed the costs of the program. One person working on the study said the reduction in donations to the university if football was dropped would more than outweigh the operational losses. That is independent of the "intangibles" such as awareness and pride within the UNiversity.

That being said proof f this can be best shown when looking at the application numbers when UNI beats Iowa State in football. Since it has happen a few times, it is pretty consistent trend that when UNI beats ISU, applications go up. So do donations. Making the NCAA tournament in Basketball has a similar effect but it happens less often and the effect is not as great.

I can not think of a single advertising department in a company that "actually" makes a profit. Still try to make a profit without advertising.

I agree with everything you said. When Lamar dropped football both enrollment and donations to the school dropped. It pissed off a lot of alumni when they killed football and it's taken a while for the university to recover. Lamar's president and AD mention these same "intangibles" as the main reasons they fought to bring back football. I think for most schools (especially at the FCS level), turning a profit might be nice but it's not the main goal of the school.

[turfdoc]

How can you audit something like the opportunity cost of dropping football?

Sounds like an economic analysis, not a financial statement audit.

You can audit the value of an intangible asset, but you can't audit the intrinsic value of a football team, as there are many independent variables that are simply not auditable.

Thus Ends Husky Alum's course #2 on EADA Accounting for Dummies.

WELL EXXXCUUUSSSSSE me for not knowing the technical jargon between an economic analysis and an "audit".

That is why there was the explanation of what was done to make it clear. Obviously you understood the nature of the study and what was done I apologize for being ignorant of the differences. The point was that universities that run at a loss when audited are actually receiving an intrinsic benefit that cannot show up in the official audit. Obviously from your reply that was clear.

Does this mean that if you "audit" an advertising department they always run at a loss? Any benefit they bring forward would be subject to an economic analysis and not auditing because advertising has so many independent variables that are simply not auditable.