Aid Accounting -- 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: Aid Accounting

Author:
FC78
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 23:36:53 12/26/04 Sun
In reply to: JoltinJoe 's message, "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." on 15:29:13 12/26/04 Sun

Some people on this board have argued for going into the A-10 for football so that we could award full athletic scholarships. But if we went from need-based aid to athletic scholarships, wouldn't we be shifting the aid costs (at least for accounting purposes) from the university to the athletic department? And if so, wouldn't the numbers indicate then that football is running a deficit, not a profit? If this is a dumb question, please pardon me (I'm new to the board). And please don't assume that one of the AFF nut-cases. I'd like to see full-scholarship football, but I'd just like to know the financial implications.

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

Replies:

Subject Author Date

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