Reported in Cincinnati Enquirer: Fordham is only A-10 school playing football to make money on football. -- FORDHAM RAMS FOOTBALL FORUM

>

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [7], 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Reported in Cincinnati Enquirer: Fordham is only A-10 school playing football to make money on football.

Author:
JoltinJoe
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 07:35:23 12/26/04 Sun

According to this article on Xavier athletics, Fordham is the only A-10 member which plays football which makes money on football. The article reported a profit for Fordham football of $173,667 for last year, although it does not explain the accounting behind it. Given this number is far more modest than the profit number we've seen reported as in excess of $3 milliion (which counts financial aid awarded to football players as revenue to the athletic department), my guess is that this figure does not count financial aid awarded as revenue. Here's the story:

Click Here

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date

Profit in excess of $3 million ??? Where has that ever been reported ? (NT) whm 09:44:41 12/26/04 Sun

I'm sorry. I meant revenues in excess of $3 million. (NT) -- JoltinJoe, 10:06:13 12/26/04 Sun

Actually, the whole post seems to have become garbled. Let me try it again: Given this number is far more modest than the profit numbers we've seen reported, the revenue figures stated in some places as being in excess of $3 million (which counts financial aid awarded to football players as revenue to the athletic department), are probably not being used in this accounting. My guess is that this figure does not count financial aid awarded as revenue. Here's the story: (NT) -- JoltinJoe, 10:49:23 12/26/04 Sun

you dolt, the $3million figure refers to expenses not revenues, (NT) -- Frank's Brain, 12:12:59 12/26/04 Sun

Before you start calling people dolts, you ought to do a little fact checking. The Chronicle of Higher Education, when reporting its gender equity findings, reported Fordham's football revenues as over $3.2 million by including aid to football player as revenue to the athletic department. That's a fact. You ought to get your facts straight before making a comment like this, because nothing looks more foolish than being flat-out wrong while calling people names. (NT) -- JoltinJoe, 13:54:37 12/26/04 Sun

First you called it profits you buffoon. You have no clue what you are writing about and you never played football so leave the fact checking up to the guys that have a clue like Ramman and Rambacker. If you have some concrete data sources with references then wuote them, correctly the first time, with suppporting data , otherwise you are just another one of these patsies posting gibberish on a daily basis., (NT) -- Frank's Brain, 13:58:36 12/26/04 Sun

Ah, too bad, you were proven wrong, and instead of admitting your error, you get even nastier. When someone pointed out my error, I acknowleged it, and corrected what I wrote to reflect what I was trying to say. Yes, you are definitely Frank's Brain. Now move on. (NT) -- JoltinJoe, 14:16:02 12/26/04 Sun

Proven wrong?? Nobody EVER said Fordham posted $3M in profits !!!!!!!!!!!!! That was your post you moron. Plus you indicate in your post that aid is "not" part of revenue??? You a re all over the map with this post., Look at the responses to you. You are contradicting your own post ever time that you respond, please take remedial reading and re-read your post above. Just like you tried to cut JoeDete on hoops board only to be shot down taht you can not even decipher military time. You are a fool. (NT) -- Frank's Brain, 14:21:23 12/26/04 Sun

I already acknowledged I said profits when I meant revenues in my first post. And what does my friendly banter with JoDete on the basketball board have to do with this? And you comment about "remedial" writing skills, when you can't even go one sentence without spelling or grammatical errors? Go back to your AFF board and write another poem in moronic pentameter. And by the way, you still have not acknowledged that you were wrong about the Chronicle of Higher Education including financial aid to football players as revenue to the athletic department, which is what started your hissy fit. (NT) -- JoltinJoe, 14:35:36 12/26/04 Sun
I wouldn't bother with these AFF idiots, Joe. They are a disgrace to the university. Their identities are known to the university's highest administrators, who consider their board -- with its crass language and poor writing -- to be a major embarassment for the university. Anyone who posts an article here suggesting that the Fordham football team makes money is going to take ad hominem hits from these dopes. You wonder how they got through Fordham being so juvenile and dim witted. (NT) -- SJ, 19:01:56 12/26/04 Sun
Frank's Brain, he's right. The Chronicle of Higher Education did count as revenue to the football program financial aid awarded to the football players. The number reported as revenue was more than $3 million. You really ought to keep quiet if you don't understand what is being said. Everytime you AFF guys post here, you have to call people names, even when you are wrong. (NT) -- JD'87, 17:29:47 12/27/04 Mon

"My guess is that this figure does not count financial aid as revenue" that was the quote from Joltin' Joe, which, is 100% WRONG. Do you even know how to read? These are simple articles and accounting reports that do not require you knuckle dragging buffoons to try and intrepret without help of someone with a brain. (NT) -- Frank's Brain, 14:17:10 12/28/04 Tue

Frank's Brain, fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life. Just shut up already. You have no idea what you're talking about. (NT) -- JD'87, 16:43:22 12/28/04 Tue

My favorite quote of the article "Once you get past the coach, which is the most important aspect, we focus on the facilities," Kissell said. "Because a coach can leave, but he can't take the building or stadium with him." (NT) Rammed 10:56:18 12/26/04 Sun

4,000 fans a game at 10 bucks a ticket with no tv contract is not going to make any money. Where on earth did this writer get these figures? Most accounting would not consider donations as going towards "profits" at a not for profit insitution. Would be interesting to see the source of this data. (NT) -- HR Block, 13:49:01 12/26/04 Sun

Whether it is legitimate accounting to include financial aid to football players as revenue to the athletic department was a subject on this board about six months ago, when the Chronicle of Higher Education issued its last report. (NT) -- JoltinJoe, 13:58:33 12/26/04 Sun
BTW, I'd guess that you could reflect a profit by not counting aid to football players as an athletic department expense, and expense that as a general cost to the university, along with all other aid given to students. Then you take your $400,000 or so in ticket sales, add in donations, and subtract costs like travel and recruiting. Using that method, your football program may show a profit. (NT) -- JoltinJoe, 15:29:13 12/26/04 Sun

Aid Accounting -- FC78, 23:36:53 12/26/04 Sun

Yes, I think. As stated, the story doesn't explain how a profit is realized. Also, if this cost were absorped by the athletic department, it would have Title IX implications for the department. When the Chronicle of Higher Education published its figure of $3.2 in revenue about six months ago, we discussed whether it was legitimate to include financial aid to players, and other university aid to the program, as revenue. It then backed out as an expense to the athletic department the cost of aid to students, and reflected the difference between the two as part of the profit to the program. (NT) -- JoltinJoe, 00:09:05 12/27/04 Mon
I'd add only that it doesn't make you an AFF crazy to recognize that the accountings reflecting a profit for the football program are questionable, because they don't take into account financial aid awarded to the football players as a football-related expense. That's why I noted that the Enquirer story didn't explain how this "profit" was realized. The poster above was more interested in calling people names than trying to comprehend what was being said. I support football, but I think it's misleading to tout that its a money-maker for the school. (NT) -- JoltinJoe, 07:50:54 12/27/04 Mon

The Chronicle doesn't use the sharpest pencil in the world when they publish reports like these. They take the numbers as submitted by schools or conferences but don't explain how they are arrived at. I'm not sure how scholarships can be defined as income in this case. I do know that financial contributions to the school are not considered "profits" by CASE, which publishes standards and practices for the higher ed fundraising. (NT) -- An Old Coach, 10:04:53 12/27/04 Mon

The $173,667 �profit� reported in the Cincinnati Enquirer article is simply football revenues ($3,429,306) reported by Fordham to the U.S. Department of Education minus the expenses it reported for football ($3,255,639). i.e., $3,429,306 � $3,255,639 = $173,667. Total �revenues� include sales of tickets, programs and media guides, concessions, Gridiron Club donations, etc. as well as institutional support for the program (i.e., financial aid awarded to the athletes, etc.). (NT) ramMan 10:37:15 12/30/04 Thu