"When the NCAA lifted the restrictions on food, I was able to do something that I always wanted to do, and that's have all the student-athletes eat together," Wisconsin athletics director Barry Alvarez said. "We think it's important. You always look for an edge in athletics. We think by doing things right, by eating right, we can get an edge."
***
The measure doesn't only allow athletes across all sports access to the same meals; it also allows the same access for student-athletes both on and off scholarship. This is a new development: Before the legislation was passed, only those on scholarship were allowed use of an athletic department's training table.
Be proactive, being reactive is for losers..
Tulane Class of 1981
I have a question that's sort of related to this, not directly. I've seen several on this forum say that there's only maybe 3 or 4 P5 programs that operate in the black. They all run a deficit of some sort. Which means, they all must get SOME money from their academic side. Now they're adding all these additional expenses by looking to pay players and feed them all for free.
How does this work at a school like LSU, that's on the verge of declaring Academic exigency due to lack of funds, which will allow them to cut programs and lay off tenured professors. If they start cutting professors and programs, how long before this becomes an issue with funding athletics when they can't fund academics?
"That mantra is the only consistent thing that never needs to ever change for the rest of this program’s existence because that is all that matters & as long as that keeps occurring, everything will handle itself" -- Nick Anderson
RobertM320 wrote:I have a question that's sort of related to this, not directly. I've seen several on this forum say that there's only maybe 3 or 4 P5 programs that operate in the black. They all run a deficit of some sort. Which means, they all must get SOME money from their academic side. Now they're adding all these additional expenses by looking to pay players and feed them all for free.
How does this work at a school like LSU, that's on the verge of declaring Academic exigency due to lack of funds, which will allow them to cut programs and lay off tenured professors. If they start cutting professors and programs, how long before this becomes an issue with funding athletics when they can't fund academics?
IMO they play a lot of games with their books adding costs that are far less in real terms. Like the cost of the scholarship, training, medical and educational support.
Consider this, why in the world would the P5's push so hard to pay athletes and also spend 100's of millions in facility costs when athletics are not a profitable endeavor for them? Are they just stupid?
I'm sure its a bookkeeping thing, but you'd think at some point the faculty of the cut programs and the released tenured professors would raise some big stink about it. I mean, its not a private university. They have to answer to the state taxpayers at some point.
"That mantra is the only consistent thing that never needs to ever change for the rest of this program’s existence because that is all that matters & as long as that keeps occurring, everything will handle itself" -- Nick Anderson
RobertM320 wrote:I'm sure its a bookkeeping thing, but you'd think at some point the faculty of the cut programs and the released tenured professors would raise some big stink about it. I mean, its not a private university. They have to answer to the state taxpayers at some point.
Criticizing the Bball or FBall programs is career suicide as the vast majority of P5's. It's sad really.
The university doesn't spend any money on athletics at this point . That's where their athletic donations come in along w/TV and ticket money. Their new president has made some noise about needing more donations to the academic side.
BAYWAVE&Sophandros are SPINELESS COWARDS YOU NEED LEVERAGE TO BE PROACTIVE!
Small time facilities for small time programs
6-4-23:Now all of the mistakes Tulane has made finally catches up with them as they descend to CUSAAC.
I don't believe that statement is correct about only a 3-4 P5 programs operating in the black. Here are LSU's 2013 financials (2014 hasn't been issued yet) and the football program made $48.4 million in 2013 (see page 12 of report).
greenphantom wrote:I don't believe that statement is correct about only a 3-4 P5 programs operating in the black. Here are LSU's 2013 financials (2014 hasn't been issued yet) and the football program made $48.4 million in 2013 (see page 12 of report).
Here's another one in case anyone thinks it's just SEC schools. Kansas St Football made $15.7M in 2014 and $14.7M in 2013 (see pages 26 and 27). Both LSU and Kansas St's entire athletic departments are well in the black even with all the non-revenue sports.
Just a few short years ago, most P5 schools were claiming that they operated athletics in the black, and that athletics were contributors to the general fund of the Universities they represented. Then, last year, in the wake of the court verdict in favor of players getting paid for their likeness and names being used in games, advertising, etc, the NCAA announced that only 20 schools turned a profit from athletics. There's plenty of games being played with the bookkeeping to suit whatever is being argued.
At the same time, it's clear that Tulane is losing money on athletics. It could have been a different story, but Cowen insisted on "The Tulane Model" which meant do things on the cheap, don't care about results or building a fan base, and minimize how much financial support athletics requires. There were two important issues under Cowen (and Fitts seems to have the same mindset: 1. Don't embarrass the University with scandal and 2. Minimize the financial impact to the University. To think that Tulane is not spending money on Athletics is naive. The AAC TV deal is very, very, very small when the pie is sliced. The lack of a fan base minimizes merchandising revenue, and the lack of on field performance has badly hurt ticket sales.
It's going to get worse before it gets better unless a commitment to winning is FINALLY made. Until then, we're going to continue to run a deficit. Couple this with Cowen's $15-20 million shortfall and there are a lot of ugly potential outcomes.
One thing from the article that I found surprising was that some of the P5's limited the meals (even after the new rules) for athletes living off campus to 4 per week. When I lived off campus, I still bought a meal plan (though it was mostly at Loyola) to ensure that I was eating consistently and not choosing between food and beer. When I worked in restaurants, particularly my last two years, I enjoyed employee meals at $1.50 ($1.64 with tax!) at least 4 or 5 times a week. But athletes are prohibited from having jobs like that, so they don't have that cheap employee meal option.
Ironically, one of the reasons St. John's basketball was so strong was that as a commuter school they were allowed to give their players stipends for housing and meals. The kids would live in groups and have excess to spend as they pleased. That was a HUGE recruiting bonus for them. When they built dorms and the NCAA tightened restrictions on such things, the program suffered, and has not been as competitive since.
" If you laugh, you think, and you cry, that's a full day.." Jimmy V
DfromCT wrote:Just a few short years ago, most P5 schools were claiming that they operated athletics in the black, and that athletics were contributors to the general fund of the Universities they represented. Then, last year, in the wake of the court verdict in favor of players getting paid for their likeness and names being used in games, advertising, etc, the NCAA announced that only 20 schools turned a profit from athletics. There's plenty of games being played with the bookkeeping to suit whatever is being argued.
At the same time, it's clear that Tulane is losing money on athletics. It could have been a different story, but Cowen insisted on "The Tulane Model" which meant do things on the cheap, don't care about results or building a fan base, and minimize how much financial support athletics requires. There were two important issues under Cowen (and Fitts seems to have the same mindset: 1. Don't embarrass the University with scandal and 2. Minimize the financial impact to the University. To think that Tulane is not spending money on Athletics is naive. The AAC TV deal is very, very, very small when the pie is sliced. The lack of a fan base minimizes merchandising revenue, and the lack of on field performance has badly hurt ticket sales.
It's going to get worse before it gets better unless a commitment to winning is FINALLY made. Until then, we're going to continue to run a deficit. Couple this with Cowen's $15-20 million shortfall and there are a lot of ugly potential outcomes.
One thing from the article that I found surprising was that some of the P5's limited the meals (even after the new rules) for athletes living off campus to 4 per week. When I lived off campus, I still bought a meal plan (though it was mostly at Loyola) to ensure that I was eating consistently and not choosing between food and beer. When I worked in restaurants, particularly my last two years, I enjoyed employee meals at $1.50 ($1.64 with tax!) at least 4 or 5 times a week. But athletes are prohibited from having jobs like that, so they don't have that cheap employee meal option.
Ironically, one of the reasons St. John's basketball was so strong was that as a commuter school they were allowed to give their players stipends for housing and meals. The kids would live in groups and have excess to spend as they pleased. That was a HUGE recruiting bonus for them. When they built dorms and the NCAA tightened restrictions on such things, the program suffered, and has not been as competitive since.
It's not a bookkeeping game. The 2 sets of financials that I linked have a clean opinion from reputable independent CPA firms. The 20% is probably bad info. Most of the P5 schools are making millions from football and it's more than supporting the rest of their athletic departments.
DfromCT wrote:Just a few short years ago, most P5 schools were claiming that they operated athletics in the black, and that athletics were contributors to the general fund of the Universities they represented. Then, last year, in the wake of the court verdict in favor of players getting paid for their likeness and names being used in games, advertising, etc, the NCAA announced that only 20 schools turned a profit from athletics. There's plenty of games being played with the bookkeeping to suit whatever is being argued.
At the same time, it's clear that Tulane is losing money on athletics. It could have been a different story, but Cowen insisted on "The Tulane Model" which meant do things on the cheap, don't care about results or building a fan base, and minimize how much financial support athletics requires. There were two important issues under Cowen (and Fitts seems to have the same mindset: 1. Don't embarrass the University with scandal and 2. Minimize the financial impact to the University. To think that Tulane is not spending money on Athletics is naive. The AAC TV deal is very, very, very small when the pie is sliced. The lack of a fan base minimizes merchandising revenue, and the lack of on field performance has badly hurt ticket sales.
It's going to get worse before it gets better unless a commitment to winning is FINALLY made. Until then, we're going to continue to run a deficit. Couple this with Cowen's $15-20 million shortfall and there are a lot of ugly potential outcomes.
One thing from the article that I found surprising was that some of the P5's limited the meals (even after the new rules) for athletes living off campus to 4 per week. When I lived off campus, I still bought a meal plan (though it was mostly at Loyola) to ensure that I was eating consistently and not choosing between food and beer. When I worked in restaurants, particularly my last two years, I enjoyed employee meals at $1.50 ($1.64 with tax!) at least 4 or 5 times a week. But athletes are prohibited from having jobs like that, so they don't have that cheap employee meal option.
Ironically, one of the reasons St. John's basketball was so strong was that as a commuter school they were allowed to give their players stipends for housing and meals. The kids would live in groups and have excess to spend as they pleased. That was a HUGE recruiting bonus for them. When they built dorms and the NCAA tightened restrictions on such things, the program suffered, and has not been as competitive since.
It's not a bookkeeping game. The 2 sets of financials that I linked have a clean opinion from reputable independent CPA firms. The 20% is probably bad info. Most of the P5 schools are making millions from football and it's more than supporting the rest of their athletic departments.
No?
NCAA LAWYERS testified in a court of law that 20 programs, no more, no less, broke even or made money in 2013. That's a heck of a lot less than 20%.
" If you laugh, you think, and you cry, that's a full day.." Jimmy V
DfromCT wrote:Just a few short years ago, most P5 schools were claiming that they operated athletics in the black, and that athletics were contributors to the general fund of the Universities they represented. Then, last year, in the wake of the court verdict in favor of players getting paid for their likeness and names being used in games, advertising, etc, the NCAA announced that only 20 schools turned a profit from athletics. There's plenty of games being played with the bookkeeping to suit whatever is being argued.
At the same time, it's clear that Tulane is losing money on athletics. It could have been a different story, but Cowen insisted on "The Tulane Model" which meant do things on the cheap, don't care about results or building a fan base, and minimize how much financial support athletics requires. There were two important issues under Cowen (and Fitts seems to have the same mindset: 1. Don't embarrass the University with scandal and 2. Minimize the financial impact to the University. To think that Tulane is not spending money on Athletics is naive. The AAC TV deal is very, very, very small when the pie is sliced. The lack of a fan base minimizes merchandising revenue, and the lack of on field performance has badly hurt ticket sales.
It's going to get worse before it gets better unless a commitment to winning is FINALLY made. Until then, we're going to continue to run a deficit. Couple this with Cowen's $15-20 million shortfall and there are a lot of ugly potential outcomes.
One thing from the article that I found surprising was that some of the P5's limited the meals (even after the new rules) for athletes living off campus to 4 per week. When I lived off campus, I still bought a meal plan (though it was mostly at Loyola) to ensure that I was eating consistently and not choosing between food and beer. When I worked in restaurants, particularly my last two years, I enjoyed employee meals at $1.50 ($1.64 with tax!) at least 4 or 5 times a week. But athletes are prohibited from having jobs like that, so they don't have that cheap employee meal option.
Ironically, one of the reasons St. John's basketball was so strong was that as a commuter school they were allowed to give their players stipends for housing and meals. The kids would live in groups and have excess to spend as they pleased. That was a HUGE recruiting bonus for them. When they built dorms and the NCAA tightened restrictions on such things, the program suffered, and has not been as competitive since.
It's not a bookkeeping game. The 2 sets of financials that I linked have a clean opinion from reputable independent CPA firms. The 20% is probably bad info. Most of the P5 schools are making millions from football and it's more than supporting the rest of their athletic departments.
Just cause they were audited doesn't mean they are not rigged. I know for a fact they use the full cost as a debit. You think it costs TU $60k to provide housing, a meal card and 5 classes a semester to their athletes?
I'll ask again, if the 60 P5's were losing so much money, why push so hard for the extra stipends? Why keep investing $100's of millions in facilities, why pay coaches more and more, why agree to massive coaching buyouts? If you were operating so deep in the red, why keep increasing costs?
DfromCT wrote:Just a few short years ago, most P5 schools were claiming that they operated athletics in the black, and that athletics were contributors to the general fund of the Universities they represented. Then, last year, in the wake of the court verdict in favor of players getting paid for their likeness and names being used in games, advertising, etc, the NCAA announced that only 20 schools turned a profit from athletics. There's plenty of games being played with the bookkeeping to suit whatever is being argued.
At the same time, it's clear that Tulane is losing money on athletics. It could have been a different story, but Cowen insisted on "The Tulane Model" which meant do things on the cheap, don't care about results or building a fan base, and minimize how much financial support athletics requires. There were two important issues under Cowen (and Fitts seems to have the same mindset: 1. Don't embarrass the University with scandal and 2. Minimize the financial impact to the University. To think that Tulane is not spending money on Athletics is naive. The AAC TV deal is very, very, very small when the pie is sliced. The lack of a fan base minimizes merchandising revenue, and the lack of on field performance has badly hurt ticket sales.
It's going to get worse before it gets better unless a commitment to winning is FINALLY made. Until then, we're going to continue to run a deficit. Couple this with Cowen's $15-20 million shortfall and there are a lot of ugly potential outcomes.
One thing from the article that I found surprising was that some of the P5's limited the meals (even after the new rules) for athletes living off campus to 4 per week. When I lived off campus, I still bought a meal plan (though it was mostly at Loyola) to ensure that I was eating consistently and not choosing between food and beer. When I worked in restaurants, particularly my last two years, I enjoyed employee meals at $1.50 ($1.64 with tax!) at least 4 or 5 times a week. But athletes are prohibited from having jobs like that, so they don't have that cheap employee meal option.
Ironically, one of the reasons St. John's basketball was so strong was that as a commuter school they were allowed to give their players stipends for housing and meals. The kids would live in groups and have excess to spend as they pleased. That was a HUGE recruiting bonus for them. When they built dorms and the NCAA tightened restrictions on such things, the program suffered, and has not been as competitive since.
It's not a bookkeeping game. The 2 sets of financials that I linked have a clean opinion from reputable independent CPA firms. The 20% is probably bad info. Most of the P5 schools are making millions from football and it's more than supporting the rest of their athletic departments.
Just cause they were audited doesn't mean they are not rigged. I know for a fact they use the full cost as a debit. You think it costs TU $60k to provide housing, a meal card and 5 classes a semester to their athletes?
I'll ask again, if the 60 P5's were losing so much money, why push so hard for the extra stipends? Why keep investing $100's of millions in facilities, why pay coaches more and more, why agree to massive coaching buyouts? If you were operating so deep in the red, why keep increasing costs?
They did it for several reasons:
1. To expand the competitive advantage over non P5s.
2. To placate student athletes so that they won't sue.
3. To create another example of their efforts to help student athletes in order to placate the media/government.
DfromCT wrote:Just a few short years ago, most P5 schools were claiming that they operated athletics in the black, and that athletics were contributors to the general fund of the Universities they represented. Then, last year, in the wake of the court verdict in favor of players getting paid for their likeness and names being used in games, advertising, etc, the NCAA announced that only 20 schools turned a profit from athletics. There's plenty of games being played with the bookkeeping to suit whatever is being argued.
At the same time, it's clear that Tulane is losing money on athletics. It could have been a different story, but Cowen insisted on "The Tulane Model" which meant do things on the cheap, don't care about results or building a fan base, and minimize how much financial support athletics requires. There were two important issues under Cowen (and Fitts seems to have the same mindset: 1. Don't embarrass the University with scandal and 2. Minimize the financial impact to the University. To think that Tulane is not spending money on Athletics is naive. The AAC TV deal is very, very, very small when the pie is sliced. The lack of a fan base minimizes merchandising revenue, and the lack of on field performance has badly hurt ticket sales.
It's going to get worse before it gets better unless a commitment to winning is FINALLY made. Until then, we're going to continue to run a deficit. Couple this with Cowen's $15-20 million shortfall and there are a lot of ugly potential outcomes.
One thing from the article that I found surprising was that some of the P5's limited the meals (even after the new rules) for athletes living off campus to 4 per week. When I lived off campus, I still bought a meal plan (though it was mostly at Loyola) to ensure that I was eating consistently and not choosing between food and beer. When I worked in restaurants, particularly my last two years, I enjoyed employee meals at $1.50 ($1.64 with tax!) at least 4 or 5 times a week. But athletes are prohibited from having jobs like that, so they don't have that cheap employee meal option.
Ironically, one of the reasons St. John's basketball was so strong was that as a commuter school they were allowed to give their players stipends for housing and meals. The kids would live in groups and have excess to spend as they pleased. That was a HUGE recruiting bonus for them. When they built dorms and the NCAA tightened restrictions on such things, the program suffered, and has not been as competitive since.
It's not a bookkeeping game. The 2 sets of financials that I linked have a clean opinion from reputable independent CPA firms. The 20% is probably bad info. Most of the P5 schools are making millions from football and it's more than supporting the rest of their athletic departments.
Just cause they were audited doesn't mean they are not rigged. I know for a fact they use the full cost as a debit. You think it costs TU $60k to provide housing, a meal card and 5 classes a semester to their athletes?
I'll ask again, if the 60 P5's were losing so much money, why push so hard for the extra stipends? Why keep investing $100's of millions in facilities, why pay coaches more and more, why agree to massive coaching buyouts? If you were operating so deep in the red, why keep increasing costs?
They did it for several reasons:
1. To expand the competitive advantage over non P5s.
2. To placate student athletes so that they won't sue.
3. To create another example of their efforts to help student athletes in order to placate the media/government.
They are not operating in the red. I just proved that with the LSU and KSU financials where they are making millions off football. I'm sure if you have the time you can look up other examples but if KSU in the Big 12 is netting $15M a year after expenses, its a safe bet that probably most are in the black. The problem is people with no knowledge posting bad info on message boards like that independent CPA firms are in bed with the P5s to rig their financial statements. Really? That was the dumb comment of the day.
greenphantom wrote:
They are not operating in the red. I just proved that with the LSU and KSU financials where they are making millions off football. I'm sure if you have the time you can look up other examples but if KSU in the Big 12 is netting $15M a year after expenses, its a safe bet that probably most are in the black. The problem is people with no knowledge posting bad info on message boards like that independent CPA firms are in bed with the P5s to rig their financial statements. Really? That was the dumb comment of the day.
Dumb comment of the day, eh? Well then, how do you explain NCAA lawyers testifying in a court of law that only 20 athletics programs operate in the black? You've proven my point very well: That they play games with the financials to suit their needs. I guess you shouldn't talk about people with no knowledge when you not only seem to lack it yourself, but also refuse to read other comments that refute your all-encompassing statements.
There's tons of information on the internet about profitability of the programs in D1. They vary widely. That shows the games being played, not necessarily by the accounting firms, but by the Universities and the NCAA itself.
greenphantom wrote:
They are not operating in the red. I just proved that with the LSU and KSU financials where they are making millions off football. I'm sure if you have the time you can look up other examples but if KSU in the Big 12 is netting $15M a year after expenses, its a safe bet that probably most are in the black. The problem is people with no knowledge posting bad info on message boards like that independent CPA firms are in bed with the P5s to rig their financial statements. Really? That was the dumb comment of the day.
Dumb comment of the day, eh? Well then, how
do you explain NCAA lawyers testifying in a court of law that only 20 athletics programs operate in the black? You've proven my point very well: That they play games with the financials to suit their needs. I guess you shouldn't talk about people with no knowledge when you not only seem to lack it yourself, but also refuse to read other comments that refute your all-encompassing statements.
There's tons of information on the internet about profitability of the programs in D1. They vary widely. That shows the games being played, not necessarily by the accounting firms, but by the Universities and the NCAA itself.
That's just an article that quotes an NCAA study but there's no concrete support. That's why you need to read the actual financials. A lot of them are there and those are the real numbers.
greenphantom wrote:
They are not operating in the red. I just proved that with the LSU and KSU financials where they are making millions off football. I'm sure if you have the time you can look up other examples but if KSU in the Big 12 is netting $15M a year after expenses, its a safe bet that probably most are in the black. The problem is people with no knowledge posting bad info on message boards like that independent CPA firms are in bed with the P5s to rig their financial statements. Really? That was the dumb comment of the day.
Dumb comment of the day, eh? Well then, how
do you explain NCAA lawyers testifying in a court of law that only 20 athletics programs operate in the black? You've proven my point very well: That they play games with the financials to suit their needs. I guess you shouldn't talk about people with no knowledge when you not only seem to lack it yourself, but also refuse to read other comments that refute your all-encompassing statements.
There's tons of information on the internet about profitability of the programs in D1. They vary widely. That shows the games being played, not necessarily by the accounting firms, but by the Universities and the NCAA itself.
That's just an article that quotes an NCAA study but there's no concrete support. That's why you need to read the actual financials. A lot of them are there and those are the real numbers.
See the article I posted. I don't understand your point in all this.....they are absolutely playing games. You are the one who is wrong. Because they are audited proves nothing.
greenphantom wrote:
They are not operating in the red. I just proved that with the LSU and KSU financials where they are making millions off football. I'm sure if you have the time you can look up other examples but if KSU in the Big 12 is netting $15M a year after expenses, its a safe bet that probably most are in the black. The problem is people with no knowledge posting bad info on message boards like that independent CPA firms are in bed with the P5s to rig their financial statements. Really? That was the dumb comment of the day.
Dumb comment of the day, eh? Well then, how
do you explain NCAA lawyers testifying in a court of law that only 20 athletics programs operate in the black? You've proven my point very well: That they play games with the financials to suit their needs. I guess you shouldn't talk about people with no knowledge when you not only seem to lack it yourself, but also refuse to read other comments that refute your all-encompassing statements.
There's tons of information on the internet about profitability of the programs in D1. They vary widely. That shows the games being played, not necessarily by the accounting firms, but by the Universities and the NCAA itself.
That's just an article that quotes an NCAA study but there's no concrete support. That's why you need to read the actual financials. A lot of them are there and those are the real numbers.
There's other articles, one of which I read two days ago but don't have the time to find, about the NCAA lawyers testifying in the case where the athletes wanted to be compensated for their likenesses being used in video games. The lawyers, and conference commissioners testified that the number of programs in the black is somewhere around 12%.
If they're providing this information and testimony, yet the financials tell a different story, then you tell me what's going on if there's no game playing with the financials? Again, I think you're making my point for me.
" If you laugh, you think, and you cry, that's a full day.." Jimmy V
This is a great article that outlines the reasoning behind keeping different sets of books. I'm sure our friend calling us the fools didn't bother to read it. For example:
At Tennessee, for example, which is listed as taking more than $12 million in 2013 subsidies despite having a 102,000-seat football stadium and an SEC television contract, the accounting makes the Vols look less sustainable than similar schools:
According to a report in Tuesday's USA Today, the University of Tennessee athletic department derived 12 percent ($13.552 million) of its revenue from subsidies. That's a misleading figure, though, UT officials say, as the majority of it is money that has never actually existed.
Example: Thompson-Boling Arena is one year older, therefore it is worth [$8.36 million] less than it was the previous year.
That $8.36 million counted as a "Depreciation" line item in the 2011 subsidy report. According to GoVolsXtra's report, Tennessee only took about $1 million of what most of us would actually think of as subsidies -- in this case, student fees. The athletic department also sent $6.84 million in revenue to the school itself, so if we were to limit the subsidies category to student fees, then the University of Tennessee would've made about $5.8 million off of its athletic department in 2011.
Oregon's athletic department claims self-sufficiency, despite its books looking different than those listed by USA Today as including no subsidies. At Florida, what appeared to a less-informed outsider to be a sports-over-academics budget decision actually involved two completely different budgets. Even within a single conference, accounting methods are so varied that comparing any single financial item is a challenge.
Those are four examples, but they show how many variables can go into a word like "subsidies." Many of the schools listed in the red below could've turned a profit if things had been accounted differently.
" If you laugh, you think, and you cry, that's a full day.." Jimmy V
You all are missing the point. What I'm saying is that the real numbers are in the audited financial statements and I gave 2 examples of schools that make millions off football and completely sustain their athletic departments. Then somebody came back saying those financial statements were rigged by the CPA firms which was a dumb comment. All you need to do is look at the audited financials to prove that the NCAA and the attorneys are either lying or manipulating the data how they see fit. For example, they could be backing out contributions from booster clubs and fans which is B.S. Attorneys practice law, not accounting.
BTW, here a couple more examples. Some don't break out by sport but willing to bet most of this comes from football :
Kansas - Net earnings in 2014 for the entire athletic department was $7.6M.
Florida - athletic dept net earnings of $10.6M in 2014 and $15.4M in 2013.
greenphantom wrote:You all are missing the point. What I'm saying is that the real numbers are in the audited financial statements and I gave 2 examples of schools that make millions off football and completely sustain their athletic departments. Then somebody came back saying those financial statements were rigged by the CPA firms which was a dumb comment. All you need to do is look at the audited financials to prove that the NCAA and the attorneys are either lying or manipulating the data how they see fit. For example, they could be backing out contributions from booster clubs and fans which is B.S. Attorneys practice law, not accounting.
I don't know who said the Accounting firms were cooking the books. What I made large above is exactly what I've been arguing. We're violently in agreement!
" If you laugh, you think, and you cry, that's a full day.." Jimmy V
greenphantom wrote:You all are missing the point. What I'm saying is that the real numbers are in the audited financial statements and I gave 2 examples of schools that make millions off football and completely sustain their athletic departments. Then somebody came back saying those financial statements were rigged by the CPA firms which was a dumb comment. All you need to do is look at the audited financials to prove that the NCAA and the attorneys are either lying or manipulating the data how they see fit. For example, they could be backing out contributions from booster clubs and fans which is B.S. Attorneys practice law, not accounting.
I don't know who said the Accounting firms were cooking the books. What I made large above is exactly what I've been arguing. We're violently in agreement!
Amen! I'll drink to that. The P5 schools and the NCAA are not hurting. Not to mention, they are set up as Not For Profit entities so they pay no taxes on millions of dollars of income generated from ticket sales and television revenue.
greenphantom wrote:You all are missing the point. What I'm saying is that the real numbers are in the audited financial statements and I gave 2 examples of schools that make millions off football and completely sustain their athletic departments. Then somebody came back saying those financial statements were rigged by the CPA firms which was a dumb comment. All you need to do is look at the audited financials to prove that the NCAA and the attorneys are either lying or manipulating the data how they see fit. For example, they could be backing out contributions from booster clubs and fans which is B.S. Attorneys practice law, not accounting.
I don't know who said the Accounting firms were cooking the books. What I made large above is exactly what I've been arguing. We're violently in agreement!
I said it. But I believe that amid a tuition bubble bursting, colleges continue to fiddle while Rome burns in a spending race to the bottom. Don't start with that "big timey sports makes for a better school," U of Rochester, Case Western, NYU, MIT, University of Chicago, et al. would take issue.
