To: Rick -- CROSSPORTS: Holy Cross Crusaders Sports Message Board

[ 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, 08:44:20pm [ 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: 21:09:02 06/16/04 Wed
Author: hc69
Subject: To: Rick
In reply to: Rick 's message, "Re: Gov't / Title IV (?) data - hc'69" on 11:30:46 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.

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

Replies:

[> [> [> 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 ]