[ 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):
| Friday, May 16, 08:24:33pm |
[ 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 ]
|
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 19:14:30 06/13/04 Sun
Author: Observer
Subject: Re: Interesting Football Recruiting Story
In reply to:
Sader Fan
's message, "Interesting Football Recruiting Story" on 23:05:11 06/12/04 Sat
At the risk of sounding redundant, isn't the info set forth in the previous posts in this thread one of the reasons why many posters support the move to a more "high profile"
league in all sports, particularly mens' and womens' hoops?
Seems the only way to go if the admin wants to 1)continue to sponsor the same number of varsity sports, 2)remain competitive, 3)keep football, 4)stem the tide of athletic red ink, 5)not participate in directed athletic giving or permit booster clubs and 6)not increase the tuition/room and board burden on the current students and their parents to compensate fro athletic program costs/losses. Perhaps, the even-numbered items are not their concerns.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Replies:
[>
Re: Interesting Football Recruiting Story -- hc69, 19:30:33 06/13/04 Sun
I agree with NTK. We have to very careful using this data because much depends on how each institution defines "revenues" and "expenses," particularly "revenues." For example, compare Yale and Harvard. According to the data, Yale's athletic program operated at a $10 million deficit. Harvard's, on the other hand, broke even, and not only did it break even, athletic revenues and expenses were identical to the dollar! If you check other PL schools, you'll see the same thing -- for example, Lafayette's program also broke even to the dollar. It's a reflection of accounting practices. That doesn't mean that Colgate doesn't spend more on athletics than we do; that may well be the case but we can't use this data set to prove it.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Re: Gov't / Title IV (?) data - hc'69 -- Rick, 11:30:46 06/16/04 Wed
Your presence/contributions here have been missed....welcome back !
" We have to very careful using this data because much depends on how each institution defines "revenues" and "expenses," particularly "revenues." "
" It's a reflection of accounting practices. That doesn't mean that Colgate doesn't spend more on athletics than we do; that may well be the case but we can't use this data set to prove it. "
It would be nice if we had a CPA here that could shed some more light on this.
The above referenced site link is provided by the 'U.S. Department of Education, Office of Post Secondary Education'. It is my impression that this submitted data is required annually under Title IX law and is specifically used to analize a school's efforts towards or continued compliance with the Equity in Athletics/Title IX mandate.
In addition to football 'revenues' and 'expenses', consider these additional descrepancies between Colgate and HC:
* M-Hoops Revenue - CU $961,650 / HC $220,054
* M/W Sports Revenue - CU $14,186,515 / HC $1,786,540
* Total Athletic Aid -
CU Men = $3,863,851 ( 62% )
CU Women = $2,381,168 ( 38% )
CU Total = $6,245,019
HC Men = $2,028,110 ( 55% )
HC Women = $1,689,925 ( 45% )
HC Total = $3,718,035
What accepted/approved 'accounting practices/principals' allow for two schools - who are nearly identical in size and student body mix - to officially 'report' so vastly different financial figures on their respective athletic programs ?
As I asked above to '64...." I can't see how some form of 'voodoo' economics or suspect creative accounting is at work here....why/what's to be gained/risked by Colgate if they tried that ? "
Further, in light of these wide descrepancies - particularly between a Colgate and a Holy Cross - of what possible value/analytical use are these 'reports' as an administrative tool within the supposed process of Title IX compliance ?
And the obvious question....Why isn't this reporting/compliance process standardized/simplified/uniform as to accounting practices/principals ?
One other note on this....
The entire Ivy League is the only conference/group of schools that reported ZERO/NOTHING under the heading 'Athletically-Related Student Aid'. Why was only that group permitted to do so ?
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: Gov't / Title IV (?) data - hc'69 -- Sader Fan, 17:15:19 06/16/04 Wed
Is there a URL where we can see these numbers?
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Re: Gov't / Title IV (?) data - link -- Rick, 17:46:54 06/16/04 Wed
http://www.ope.ed.gov/athletics/search.asp
SF -
Simply type in HC or any other school to view the various categories of data....
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
To: Rick -- hc69, 21:09:02 06/16/04 Wed
The feds don't care about the revenue side of the operation; Title IX is concerned with expenses. Thus there is going to be much more variation in how schools report revenues. Even with expenses, however, there is considerable latitude, as long as the accounting methods for men's and women's sports are the same and fairly compare spending. For example, some schools apportion expenses such as administrative overhead and facilities among all the sports while others make it a separate non-apportioned expense. Either method is acceptable. What a school could not do, however, is apportion overhead and facilities to women's sports while not doing so to men's sports, thus artificially inflating how much they spend on women's sports. (And in some schools athletic facilities are part of the general institutional facilities budget rather than the athletic budget, which is also acceptable.) This data is largely for public consumption anyway; OCR doesn't use it to determine whether a school is in Title IX compliance. If OCR comes on your campus, they'll run their own audit.
As for the Ivies and athletically related aid: As I understand it, at an Ivy all admissions are need-blind and there is no aid available to an athlete that is not available to a non-athlete, thus there is no athletic aid. At the PL schools, however, athletes may get cash grants in lieu of loans and work-study (max is about $4-5K), thus triggering athletically related aid.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: Gov't / Title IV (?) data - hc'69 -- Gate'93, 10:31:42 06/17/04 Thu
Rick -
I'm not a CPA, but I do analyze not-for-profit financial statements for a living. The short answer to why there isn't standard reporting is that there isn't standardized accounting in this realm - revenues in particular are a somewhat arbitrary number based on how a school and its CPAs decide to set things up. For instance, several Patriot League schools are reported to have revenues exactly equal to expenses. That is accomplished by a "transfer" of funds from the general account to the sport or athletic department account in order to match whatever was expended. Not for profits, particularly schools & hospitals do alot of moving money from one pocket to another. As for how 'Gate's revenues can be so much higher, there are multiple reasons. For example, Colgate might distribute all non-directed donations across all departments based on the size of the department while HC accounts for all such donations at the college level only. Colgate also, I believe, has a dedicated athletics endowment. The revenue could be largely the result of changes in the value of securities held in this endowment. So no voodoo, just alot of confusing options, none of which are wrong, but all of which produce very different results. As noted somewhere else in this string, that's why the Gov't looks at expenses, not revenues (though those aren't 100% fool-proof either).
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Ivy reporting -- colgate13, 11:08:46 06/17/04 Thu
hc69 is right. The Ivys don't consider any of their aid to be athletically related so they don't report it. And the NCAA lets them get away with it.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
