From the blog post:

A few observations and clarifications:
Boston College only reported non-zero numbers for 3 sports - the 2 shown, and Ice Hockey. So all of that "other" is claimed to be the loss taken on ice hockey.
Clemson reported numbers for each sport, but football was the only one that turned a profit.
Duke claims to make almost as much profit on basketball as it does on football. Eh, that might be true. They also claim a small profit on golf, but everything else loses money.
Florida State amazingly reports $0.00 profit on every sport.
Georgia Tech is typical, making money on football, losing money on everything else.
Louisville is atypical, making huge money on basketball, a little on football, with all other sports either losing money or breaking even.
Miami says football breaks even and basketball and baseball make a little profit. They say all other sports break even, too (fishy!)
NC State makes money on both football and basketball, but loses money on all other sports.
UNC also makes money on football and basketball only, although they say those sports are close to even in terms of profit.
Notre Dame makes big money on football, while everything else loses money.
Pitt makes about 3.5 times as much on football as on basketball, and claims to break even on all other sports.
Syracuse says football and basketball are both profitable, with MBB being slightly more so.
Virginia says they break even everywhere except football (oh, they said soccer made $1)
Virginia Tech relies on football as the only profitable sport (typical of most football-first schools)
Wake Forest makes decent money on football and a little (less than 1/10th) on basketball.

BOTTOM LINE:
On average, ACC schools made $13.8 million profit on football, $3.2 million on basketball, lost about $1.2 million on baseball, and dumped another $6.4 million sponsoring the "non-revenue" sports.

I didn't bother trying to paste the table of data here - if you want to see it, click here: https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2020/...thers.html

The ACC is likely going to have the most interesting numbers for all the power conferences having a few relatively big heavies in football and basketball. The ACC also excels at sports like baseball, soccer, and lacrosse. A very unique conference in diversity of accomplishment.

(05-25-2020 09:17 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Georgia Tech is typical, making money on football, losing money on everything else.

At least while Pastner is there yea. I think baseball could be near profitable or lightly profitable if managed correctly at GT. But that is probably the limit of financial viability within the programs in terms of fan revenue. At GT golf is fully endowed and can keep chugging along with zero income or support from the GTAA.

(05-25-2020 09:17 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  From the blog post:

A few observations and clarifications:
Boston College only reported non-zero numbers for 3 sports - the 2 shown, and Ice Hockey. So all of that "other" is claimed to be the loss taken on ice hockey.
Clemson reported numbers for each sport, but football was the only one that turned a profit.
Duke claims to make almost as much profit on basketball as it does on football. Eh, that might be true. They also claim a small profit on golf, but everything else loses money.
Florida State amazingly reports $0.00 profit on every sport.
Georgia Tech is typical, making money on football, losing money on everything else.
Louisville is atypical, making huge money on basketball, a little on football, with all other sports either losing money or breaking even.
Miami says football breaks even and basketball and baseball make a little profit. They say all other sports break even, too (fishy!)
NC State makes money on both football and basketball, but loses money on all other sports.
UNC also makes money on football and basketball only, although they say those sports are close to even in terms of profit.
Notre Dame makes big money on football, while everything else loses money.
Pitt makes about 3.5 times as much on football as on basketball, and claims to break even on all other sports.
Syracuse says football and basketball are both profitable, with MBB being slightly more so.
Virginia says they break even everywhere except football (oh, they said soccer made $1)
Virginia Tech relies on football as the only profitable sport (typical of most football-first schools)
Wake Forest makes decent money on football and a little (less than 1/10th) on basketball.

BOTTOM LINE:
On average, ACC schools made $13.8 million profit on football, $3.2 million on basketball, lost about $1.2 million on baseball, and dumped another $6.4 million sponsoring the "non-revenue" sports.

I didn't bother trying to paste the table of data here - if you want to see it, click here: https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2020/...thers.html

There's no honesty in any of those numbers or any reported in the SEC and I'm guessing the Big 10's are probably as specious.

I know at Auburn that baseball and softball can operate in the black, but aren't reported as such. Take all of this with a grain of salt and get an accountant to tell you why.

(05-25-2020 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-25-2020 09:17 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  From the blog post:

A few observations and clarifications:
Boston College only reported non-zero numbers for 3 sports - the 2 shown, and Ice Hockey. So all of that "other" is claimed to be the loss taken on ice hockey.
Clemson reported numbers for each sport, but football was the only one that turned a profit.
Duke claims to make almost as much profit on basketball as it does on football. Eh, that might be true. They also claim a small profit on golf, but everything else loses money.
Florida State amazingly reports $0.00 profit on every sport.
Georgia Tech is typical, making money on football, losing money on everything else.
Louisville is atypical, making huge money on basketball, a little on football, with all other sports either losing money or breaking even.
Miami says football breaks even and basketball and baseball make a little profit. They say all other sports break even, too (fishy!)
NC State makes money on both football and basketball, but loses money on all other sports.
UNC also makes money on football and basketball only, although they say those sports are close to even in terms of profit.
Notre Dame makes big money on football, while everything else loses money.
Pitt makes about 3.5 times as much on football as on basketball, and claims to break even on all other sports.
Syracuse says football and basketball are both profitable, with MBB being slightly more so.
Virginia says they break even everywhere except football (oh, they said soccer made $1)
Virginia Tech relies on football as the only profitable sport (typical of most football-first schools)
Wake Forest makes decent money on football and a little (less than 1/10th) on basketball.

BOTTOM LINE:
On average, ACC schools made $13.8 million profit on football, $3.2 million on basketball, lost about $1.2 million on baseball, and dumped another $6.4 million sponsoring the "non-revenue" sports.

I didn't bother trying to paste the table of data here - if you want to see it, click here: https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2020/...thers.html

There's no honesty in any of those numbers or any reported in the SEC and I'm guessing the Big 10's are probably as specious.

I know at Auburn that baseball and softball can operate in the black, but aren't reported as such. Take all of this with a grain of salt and get an accountant to tell you why.

Very true. All these programs in the FBS use the accounting methods to their advantage. IN SU's case, I lnow that the bb program makes a lot of revenue that helps pay for some non revenue programs.

Also, Mark, college baseball is not a major sport nationally. Only in the south does anyone view college baseball as the 3rd major college sport. In the rest of the country its not viewed as such. In the northeast, college lacrosse is much bigger than college baseball. Across the country, mens ice hockey and womens bb are bigger revenue generators for colleges.

(05-25-2020 04:50 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-25-2020 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-25-2020 09:17 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  From the blog post:

A few observations and clarifications:
Boston College only reported non-zero numbers for 3 sports - the 2 shown, and Ice Hockey. So all of that "other" is claimed to be the loss taken on ice hockey.
Clemson reported numbers for each sport, but football was the only one that turned a profit.
Duke claims to make almost as much profit on basketball as it does on football. Eh, that might be true. They also claim a small profit on golf, but everything else loses money.
Florida State amazingly reports $0.00 profit on every sport.
Georgia Tech is typical, making money on football, losing money on everything else.
Louisville is atypical, making huge money on basketball, a little on football, with all other sports either losing money or breaking even.
Miami says football breaks even and basketball and baseball make a little profit. They say all other sports break even, too (fishy!)
NC State makes money on both football and basketball, but loses money on all other sports.
UNC also makes money on football and basketball only, although they say those sports are close to even in terms of profit.
Notre Dame makes big money on football, while everything else loses money.
Pitt makes about 3.5 times as much on football as on basketball, and claims to break even on all other sports.
Syracuse says football and basketball are both profitable, with MBB being slightly more so.
Virginia says they break even everywhere except football (oh, they said soccer made $1)
Virginia Tech relies on football as the only profitable sport (typical of most football-first schools)
Wake Forest makes decent money on football and a little (less than 1/10th) on basketball.

BOTTOM LINE:
On average, ACC schools made $13.8 million profit on football, $3.2 million on basketball, lost about $1.2 million on baseball, and dumped another $6.4 million sponsoring the "non-revenue" sports.

I didn't bother trying to paste the table of data here - if you want to see it, click here: https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2020/...thers.html

There's no honesty in any of those numbers or any reported in the SEC and I'm guessing the Big 10's are probably as specious.

I know at Auburn that baseball and softball can operate in the black, but aren't reported as such. Take all of this with a grain of salt and get an accountant to tell you why.

Very true. All these programs in the FBS use the accounting methods to their advantage. IN SU's case, I lnow that the bb program makes a lot of revenue that helps pay for some non revenue programs.

Also, Mark, college baseball is not a major sport nationally. Only in the south does anyone view college baseball as the 3rd major college sport. In the rest of the country its not viewed as such. In the northeast, college lacrosse is much bigger than college baseball. Across the country, mens ice hockey and womens bb are bigger revenue generators for colleges.

Actually women's basketball is all in the red now. Tennessee and Connecticut both run in the red on Women's hoops and they were the last 2 programs running in the black. Women's softball is the only women's sport I know of where some schools are in the black, and then none of them by much. But baseball being largely regional is accurate. Southeast, Southwest, and Pacific Coast are baseball country.

If you need an annual donation from your booster club or you egregiously tap your students for NCAA athletic fees, and then you show breaking even, you are running at a net loss in the real world.

I've already forgotten more about public accounting than most folks on this site have ever known and when you learn it the State of NC way you learn modified accrual and how to recognize the bull **** that is full accrual accounting.


For instance, UVa transfers in about $700 per undergraduate or $11 million a year from the U. VT only taps it's students for $320 and generates $9,000,000 a year. Carolina taps students for about $250 and NC State taps its students for about $310. UNC has 19K undergrads, State has 25K. That's $4.7 mill at Carolina and $7.7 at State transferred into the programs. All UNC-Ch scholarships are endowed. UVa is up to about 2/3rds, NC State is less than 20%. This is another transfer into the program, but depending on when the transaction is shown, it may not help the budget.

Usually NC State get's less than a $1 Million per year from the University at large and the last donation of any size was for the rehabilitation of Reynolds Coliseum to bring it up to code. (Carolina had done the same thing several years earlier). However this is contribution to a fixed asset.

In NC governmental accounting means that operations like sports, or water, or electric are accounted for like a business to show a real profit or loss so that the ptb know how much the stuff actually costs and how to price it.

Hokie, I don't know why ND chooses to show a loss in basketball of 9 million. That's akin to no one purchasing a ticket or them getting any ACC revenue. Louisville has a sweetheart deal with the YUM center where the U gets ALL THE MONEY from damn near every event and the city gets ****. In most states that would be called fraud. But KY being KY, well, there you are.

For real numbers at many of the places you will need audits. Money will be completely fungible at all the privates - BC, Duke, WF, ND, Miami, and Syracuse (what is Pitt's legal status?). The accounting rules in NC are the strictest, second strictest will be Va, SC, and Ga. I can't say about Pa and Florida, but I would think they are much looser.

I question the "profitability" of any sport outside Football and Basketball because while those sports may make money this year and next year from the current accounts, without setting aside or funding accumulated depreciation for stadium replacement and being charged a percentage of the administrative and legal overhead, they are making money in an non-revenue fund sense. In an enterprise fund they will need transfers in to pay that overhead and depreciation.

I know several of the huge wheels at UNC who have personally endowed lesser known sports. Let's say a man and his wife give $5,000,000 to the track team or girls lacrosse team in addition to the support and best box at those venues, he is the party room at Dean Dome, he has access to a block of seats 10-20 rows off the court. Now a man like that usually makes the donation over time but the Rams Club, and now Advancement receive the money and record it - you can make it look like an annual income revenue and if you were running cash accounting you would, modified accrual would show the whole amount, but in NC, you receive that revenue and then pass it into a separate fund so you should show the revenue and then an expense and not show the revenue again until you tap it in later years.

At the current time the UNC Athletic Department has a cash flow pinch. They do not have willy nilly access to the endowment and they had to pay for the collapse of the drainage system between the Bell Tower, Football Stadium and Girls Lacrosse Field before those structures started washing down the creek toward the golf course and OWASA's sewer plant. The AD put that expenditure on short term notes with BB&T, hoping to get the State of NC to accept the amount as a State backed bond meaning instead of a 24 month term and 6% Bubba could get a 25 year term and 3.85% rate. It was a bit of a gamble but it worked.

I've worked for some folks that did not understand that revenues owed was not cash available for spending. Eventually I had to "hide" cash money in accounts with technical names to keep them from overspending.

(05-25-2020 06:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-25-2020 04:50 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-25-2020 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-25-2020 09:17 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  From the blog post:

A few observations and clarifications:
Boston College only reported non-zero numbers for 3 sports - the 2 shown, and Ice Hockey. So all of that "other" is claimed to be the loss taken on ice hockey.
Clemson reported numbers for each sport, but football was the only one that turned a profit.
Duke claims to make almost as much profit on basketball as it does on football. Eh, that might be true. They also claim a small profit on golf, but everything else loses money.
Florida State amazingly reports $0.00 profit on every sport.
Georgia Tech is typical, making money on football, losing money on everything else.
Louisville is atypical, making huge money on basketball, a little on football, with all other sports either losing money or breaking even.
Miami says football breaks even and basketball and baseball make a little profit. They say all other sports break even, too (fishy!)
NC State makes money on both football and basketball, but loses money on all other sports.
UNC also makes money on football and basketball only, although they say those sports are close to even in terms of profit.
Notre Dame makes big money on football, while everything else loses money.
Pitt makes about 3.5 times as much on football as on basketball, and claims to break even on all other sports.
Syracuse says football and basketball are both profitable, with MBB being slightly more so.
Virginia says they break even everywhere except football (oh, they said soccer made $1)
Virginia Tech relies on football as the only profitable sport (typical of most football-first schools)
Wake Forest makes decent money on football and a little (less than 1/10th) on basketball.

BOTTOM LINE:
On average, ACC schools made $13.8 million profit on football, $3.2 million on basketball, lost about $1.2 million on baseball, and dumped another $6.4 million sponsoring the "non-revenue" sports.

I didn't bother trying to paste the table of data here - if you want to see it, click here: https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2020/...thers.html

There's no honesty in any of those numbers or any reported in the SEC and I'm guessing the Big 10's are probably as specious.

I know at Auburn that baseball and softball can operate in the black, but aren't reported as such. Take all of this with a grain of salt and get an accountant to tell you why.

Very true. All these programs in the FBS use the accounting methods to their advantage. IN SU's case, I lnow that the bb program makes a lot of revenue that helps pay for some non revenue programs.

Also, Mark, college baseball is not a major sport nationally. Only in the south does anyone view college baseball as the 3rd major college sport. In the rest of the country its not viewed as such. In the northeast, college lacrosse is much bigger than college baseball. Across the country, mens ice hockey and womens bb are bigger revenue generators for colleges.

Actually women's basketball is all in the red now. Tennessee and Connecticut both run in the red on Women's hoops and they were the last 2 programs running in the black. Women's softball is the only women's sport I know of where some schools are in the black, and then none of them by much. But baseball being largely regional is accurate. Southeast, Southwest, and Pacific Coast are baseball country.

If you would notice in my post that you responded to, I didnt say anything about profitability or who is in the black. I mentioned biggest revenue generators, because I know that generating more revenue doesnt mean that a particular sport at a college is profitable. I am well aware that many womens sports, including basketbal, are not profitable, but the amount of revenue it generates does indicate its popularity on campuses. But womens basketball does indeed generate more revenue than baseball. So does mens ice hockey. I was surprised to learn a while back that mens hockey generates so much revenue, which doubles, baseball.

(05-25-2020 07:31 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-25-2020 06:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-25-2020 04:50 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-25-2020 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-25-2020 09:17 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  From the blog post:

A few observations and clarifications:
Boston College only reported non-zero numbers for 3 sports - the 2 shown, and Ice Hockey. So all of that "other" is claimed to be the loss taken on ice hockey.
Clemson reported numbers for each sport, but football was the only one that turned a profit.
Duke claims to make almost as much profit on basketball as it does on football. Eh, that might be true. They also claim a small profit on golf, but everything else loses money.
Florida State amazingly reports $0.00 profit on every sport.
Georgia Tech is typical, making money on football, losing money on everything else.
Louisville is atypical, making huge money on basketball, a little on football, with all other sports either losing money or breaking even.
Miami says football breaks even and basketball and baseball make a little profit. They say all other sports break even, too (fishy!)
NC State makes money on both football and basketball, but loses money on all other sports.
UNC also makes money on football and basketball only, although they say those sports are close to even in terms of profit.
Notre Dame makes big money on football, while everything else loses money.
Pitt makes about 3.5 times as much on football as on basketball, and claims to break even on all other sports.
Syracuse says football and basketball are both profitable, with MBB being slightly more so.
Virginia says they break even everywhere except football (oh, they said soccer made $1)
Virginia Tech relies on football as the only profitable sport (typical of most football-first schools)
Wake Forest makes decent money on football and a little (less than 1/10th) on basketball.

BOTTOM LINE:
On average, ACC schools made $13.8 million profit on football, $3.2 million on basketball, lost about $1.2 million on baseball, and dumped another $6.4 million sponsoring the "non-revenue" sports.

I didn't bother trying to paste the table of data here - if you want to see it, click here: https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2020/...thers.html

There's no honesty in any of those numbers or any reported in the SEC and I'm guessing the Big 10's are probably as specious.

I know at Auburn that baseball and softball can operate in the black, but aren't reported as such. Take all of this with a grain of salt and get an accountant to tell you why.

Very true. All these programs in the FBS use the accounting methods to their advantage. IN SU's case, I lnow that the bb program makes a lot of revenue that helps pay for some non revenue programs.

Also, Mark, college baseball is not a major sport nationally. Only in the south does anyone view college baseball as the 3rd major college sport. In the rest of the country its not viewed as such. In the northeast, college lacrosse is much bigger than college baseball. Across the country, mens ice hockey and womens bb are bigger revenue generators for colleges.

Actually women's basketball is all in the red now. Tennessee and Connecticut both run in the red on Women's hoops and they were the last 2 programs running in the black. Women's softball is the only women's sport I know of where some schools are in the black, and then none of them by much. But baseball being largely regional is accurate. Southeast, Southwest, and Pacific Coast are baseball country.

If you would notice in my post that you responded to, I didnt say anything about profitability or who is in the black. I mentioned biggest revenue generators, because I know that generating more revenue doesnt mean that a particular sport at a college is profitable. I am well aware that many womens sports, including basketball are not profitable. But womens basketball does indeed generate more revenue than baseball. I was surprised to learn a while back that mens hockey generates so much revenue, which doubles, baseball.

I can believe that in upstate New York, but in the SEC baseball at many schools operates in the black. Even Softball at some schools operates in the black. But as a line item that drives revenue they are still small.

But as far as the AD goes operating in the black on a sport not named Football or men's basketball is a big plus. It's just that finding any women's sport that can operate in the black is extremely rare.

(05-25-2020 07:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-25-2020 07:31 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-25-2020 06:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-25-2020 04:50 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-25-2020 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There's no honesty in any of those numbers or any reported in the SEC and I'm guessing the Big 10's are probably as specious.

I know at Auburn that baseball and softball can operate in the black, but aren't reported as such. Take all of this with a grain of salt and get an accountant to tell you why.

Very true. All these programs in the FBS use the accounting methods to their advantage. IN SU's case, I lnow that the bb program makes a lot of revenue that helps pay for some non revenue programs.

Also, Mark, college baseball is not a major sport nationally. Only in the south does anyone view college baseball as the 3rd major college sport. In the rest of the country its not viewed as such. In the northeast, college lacrosse is much bigger than college baseball. Across the country, mens ice hockey and womens bb are bigger revenue generators for colleges.

Actually women's basketball is all in the red now. Tennessee and Connecticut both run in the red on Women's hoops and they were the last 2 programs running in the black. Women's softball is the only women's sport I know of where some schools are in the black, and then none of them by much. But baseball being largely regional is accurate. Southeast, Southwest, and Pacific Coast are baseball country.

If you would notice in my post that you responded to, I didnt say anything about profitability or who is in the black. I mentioned biggest revenue generators, because I know that generating more revenue doesnt mean that a particular sport at a college is profitable. I am well aware that many womens sports, including basketball are not profitable. But womens basketball does indeed generate more revenue than baseball. I was surprised to learn a while back that mens hockey generates so much revenue, which doubles, baseball.

I can believe that in upstate New York, but in the SEC baseball at many schools operates in the black. Even Softball at some schools operates in the black. But as a line item that drives revenue they are still small.

But as far as the AD goes operating in the black on a sport not named Football or men's basketball is a big plus. It's just that finding any women's sport that can operate in the black is extremely rare.

Not sure about which schools generate what. And I have no doubt that SEC schools generate a good amount of revenue, I would also include many ACC schools and other areas of the nation. But nationally, as this LINK shows, womens college bb and especially, mens ice hockey generates more revenue than mens college baseball. This is why I find it somewhat amusing when folks try to promote the idea that college baseball is the 3rd major sport. Even college lacrosse is just less than $400,000 on average in revenue generation, nationally, than baseball, and playing far fewer games.

(05-25-2020 08:07 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-25-2020 07:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-25-2020 07:31 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-25-2020 06:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-25-2020 04:50 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  Very true. All these programs in the FBS use the accounting methods to their advantage. IN SU's case, I lnow that the bb program makes a lot of revenue that helps pay for some non revenue programs.

Also, Mark, college baseball is not a major sport nationally. Only in the south does anyone view college baseball as the 3rd major college sport. In the rest of the country its not viewed as such. In the northeast, college lacrosse is much bigger than college baseball. Across the country, mens ice hockey and womens bb are bigger revenue generators for colleges.

Actually women's basketball is all in the red now. Tennessee and Connecticut both run in the red on Women's hoops and they were the last 2 programs running in the black. Women's softball is the only women's sport I know of where some schools are in the black, and then none of them by much. But baseball being largely regional is accurate. Southeast, Southwest, and Pacific Coast are baseball country.

If you would notice in my post that you responded to, I didnt say anything about profitability or who is in the black. I mentioned biggest revenue generators, because I know that generating more revenue doesnt mean that a particular sport at a college is profitable. I am well aware that many womens sports, including basketball are not profitable. But womens basketball does indeed generate more revenue than baseball. I was surprised to learn a while back that mens hockey generates so much revenue, which doubles, baseball.

I can believe that in upstate New York, but in the SEC baseball at many schools operates in the black. Even Softball at some schools operates in the black. But as a line item that drives revenue they are still small.

But as far as the AD goes operating in the black on a sport not named Football or men's basketball is a big plus. It's just that finding any women's sport that can operate in the black is extremely rare.

Not sure about which schools generate what. And I have no doubt that SEC schools generate a good amount of revenue, I would also include many ACC schools and other areas of the nation. But nationally, as this LINK shows, womens college bb and mens ice hockey generates more revenue than mens college baseball. This is why I find it somewhat amusing when folks try to promote the idea that college baseball is the 3rd major sport. Even college lacrosse is just $300,000 less on average in revenue generation, nationally, than baseball, and playing far fewer games.

In 2016, the date of the article UConn and Tennessee still produced a little. In the SEC and I'm sure the Big 12, the southern schools of the ACC and in the Pacific baseball does well enough and if the tournament wasn't controlled by the NCAA it would do even better. But the P5 baseball programs that make revenue would be a fraction of those counting all divisions that don't. You need more recent data. I'm sure the Equity in Athletics site should have some.

(05-25-2020 08:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-25-2020 08:07 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-25-2020 07:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-25-2020 07:31 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-25-2020 06:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Actually women's basketball is all in the red now. Tennessee and Connecticut both run in the red on Women's hoops and they were the last 2 programs running in the black. Women's softball is the only women's sport I know of where some schools are in the black, and then none of them by much. But baseball being largely regional is accurate. Southeast, Southwest, and Pacific Coast are baseball country.

If you would notice in my post that you responded to, I didnt say anything about profitability or who is in the black. I mentioned biggest revenue generators, because I know that generating more revenue doesnt mean that a particular sport at a college is profitable. I am well aware that many womens sports, including basketball are not profitable. But womens basketball does indeed generate more revenue than baseball. I was surprised to learn a while back that mens hockey generates so much revenue, which doubles, baseball.

I can believe that in upstate New York, but in the SEC baseball at many schools operates in the black. Even Softball at some schools operates in the black. But as a line item that drives revenue they are still small.

But as far as the AD goes operating in the black on a sport not named Football or men's basketball is a big plus. It's just that finding any women's sport that can operate in the black is extremely rare.

Not sure about which schools generate what. And I have no doubt that SEC schools generate a good amount of revenue, I would also include many ACC schools and other areas of the nation. But nationally, as this LINK shows, womens college bb and mens ice hockey generates more revenue than mens college baseball. This is why I find it somewhat amusing when folks try to promote the idea that college baseball is the 3rd major sport. Even college lacrosse is just $300,000 less on average in revenue generation, nationally, than baseball, and playing far fewer games.

In 2016, the date of the article UConn and Tennessee still produced a little. In the SEC and I'm sure the Big 12, the southern schools of the ACC and in the Pacific baseball does well enough and if the tournament wasn't controlled by the NCAA it would do even better. But the P5 baseball programs that make revenue would be a fraction of those counting all divisions that don't. You need more recent data. I'm sure the Equity in Athletics site should have some.

A few months ago, someone posted the numbers from the 2018-2019 school year on the realignment board and the order was the same. The revenue difference was about the same. These things dont change or fluctuate drastically over a 3 year period. Regarding baseball and the tourney doing better if the NCAA didnt control it, the same could be said about bb and likely all other college sports. It is what it is though. I feel the same way about lacrosse as you do about baseball. But I believe I read somewhere that soccer generates more revenue at SU than lacrosse. I dont know why, if thats true. Some lacrosse games at SU get more than 20,000 people in attendance

Lacrosse games at Cuse drawing 20K is in the past

Typically now more like 5K.

Sadly Cuse was on a roll and the favorite to win the natty this year. That would probably boost attendance next year. They should be preseason #1.

Cuse and Louisville both mint money in both sports (football and basketball).

UNC should have the same profile... accounting is funny.

Not surprised by all the inconsistency in accounting standards. It’s difficult to do true operating income when so much of expenses are shared fixed assets used by multiple sports. Schools are using different criteria to manage their financial reviews.

It wouldn’t be surprising if a school like UVA gave financial authority to their head coaches over items that they control...such as scholarships, coaches salaries, recruiting and travel. These “variable” costs are not the fully loaded expenses of running the program, but are deemed the annual budgets for a sport. Given that UVA has a lot of scholarships that are endowed, it’s not surprising that a sport can technically break-even most years...basically the head coaches are sticking to the budget when operating Olympic sports.

On the other hand, the AD is managing the capitalized items...such as the stadiums or fired football coaches buy-outs. Which can get even more complex if the university has an affiliated booster club to help fund some of these long-term needs.

(05-25-2020 06:29 PM)Statefan Wrote:  If you need an annual donation from your booster club or you egregiously tap your students for NCAA athletic fees, and then you show breaking even, you are running at a net loss in the real world.

I've already forgotten more about public accounting than most folks on this site have ever known and when you learn it the State of NC way you learn modified accrual and how to recognize the bull **** that is full accrual accounting.


For instance, UVa transfers in about $700 per undergraduate or $11 million a year from the U. VT only taps it's students for $320 and generates $9,000,000 a year. Carolina taps students for about $250 and NC State taps its students for about $310. UNC has 19K undergrads, State has 25K. That's $4.7 mill at Carolina and $7.7 at State transferred into the programs. All UNC-Ch scholarships are endowed. UVa is up to about 2/3rds, NC State is less than 20%. This is another transfer into the program, but depending on when the transaction is shown, it may not help the budget.

Usually NC State get's less than a $1 Million per year from the University at large and the last donation of any size was for the rehabilitation of Reynolds Coliseum to bring it up to code. (Carolina had done the same thing several years earlier). However this is contribution to a fixed asset.

In NC governmental accounting means that operations like sports, or water, or electric are accounted for like a business to show a real profit or loss so that the ptb know how much the stuff actually costs and how to price it.

Hokie, I don't know why ND chooses to show a loss in basketball of 9 million. That's akin to no one purchasing a ticket or them getting any ACC revenue. Louisville has a sweetheart deal with the YUM center where the U gets ALL THE MONEY from damn near every event and the city gets ****. In most states that would be called fraud. But KY being KY, well, there you are.

For real numbers at many of the places you will need audits. Money will be completely fungible at all the privates - BC, Duke, WF, ND, Miami, and Syracuse (what is Pitt's legal status?). The accounting rules in NC are the strictest, second strictest will be Va, SC, and Ga. I can't say about Pa and Florida, but I would think they are much looser.

State-related. State subsidized but operationally private (privately governed and in control of selecting its managing board seats and officers) with private control of its assets and not subject to the state's open records laws.

It is categorized as a public because it offers in-state tuition discounts and there is an either or bucket for that classification by the Carnegie Institute which all publications use for data.

None of the athletic financial data cite above is comparable across institutions. There are not standard accounting practices.

(05-25-2020 08:07 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  Not sure about which schools generate what. And I have no doubt that SEC schools generate a good amount of revenue, I would also include many ACC schools and other areas of the nation. But nationally, as this LINK shows, womens college bb and especially, mens ice hockey generates more revenue than mens college baseball. This is why I find it somewhat amusing when folks try to promote the idea that college baseball is the 3rd major sport. Even college lacrosse is just less than $400,000 on average in revenue generation, nationally, than baseball, and playing far fewer games.

Based on your link one could conclude that there is a fact of life in Division I athletics that cannot be ignored. Football is responsible for 85% of an athletic department's revenue—if not more. IIWII

(05-27-2020 07:26 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(05-25-2020 08:07 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  Not sure about which schools generate what. And I have no doubt that SEC schools generate a good amount of revenue, I would also include many ACC schools and other areas of the nation. But nationally, as this LINK shows, womens college bb and especially, mens ice hockey generates more revenue than mens college baseball. This is why I find it somewhat amusing when folks try to promote the idea that college baseball is the 3rd major sport. Even college lacrosse is just less than $400,000 on average in revenue generation, nationally, than baseball, and playing far fewer games.

Based on your link one could conclude that there is a fact of life in Division I athletics that cannot be ignored. Football is responsible for 85% of an athletic department's revenue—if not more. IIWII

Really? How do you come to that conclusion based off of my link?

(05-26-2020 11:23 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Not surprised by all the inconsistency in accounting standards. It’s difficult to do true operating income when so much of expenses are shared fixed assets used by multiple sports. Schools are using different criteria to manage their financial reviews.

It wouldn’t be surprising if a school like UVA gave financial authority to their head coaches over items that they control...such as scholarships, coaches salaries, recruiting and travel. These “variable” costs are not the fully loaded expenses of running the program, but are deemed the annual budgets for a sport. Given that UVA has a lot of scholarships that are endowed, it’s not surprising that a sport can technically break-even most years...basically the head coaches are sticking to the budget when operating Olympic sports.

On the other hand, the AD is managing the capitalized items...such as the stadiums or fired football coaches buy-outs. Which can get even more complex if the university has an affiliated booster club to help fund some of these long-term needs.

The Equity in Athletics reporting is designed to allow schools to disguise the true costs of individual sports programs. The act which triggers those reports is only concerned with questions of gender equity, and seeks uniformity only as to those questions. It leaves individual schools free to frame their reports in whatever ways suit the internal political needs of their various constituencies with regard to all other financial matters. Full transparency is not their goal.