Harvard newspaper doesn't want a 4th sorority

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Well, for state universities, this is a matter of public record. One that I have offhand (as it's a good example) is the University of Iowa. Their 2011 fiscal year athletic budget, as reported to the Board of Regents:



Iowa is a little different because it accepts no general-fund money from the school and is athletically self-sufficient, but for a (probably) second-tier athletic school, the numbers are staggering, and even these are dwarfed by the likes of Texas and Florida.

Football drives the train, though, so there's good reason why a Texas State or UL-Monroe wants in on that particular action: it's absurdly profitable. That profitability opens new doors - admissions requests go up, endowment and donations increase, etc.

I can understand, on some level, why DF and others feel this is "dirty money" but there are about a dozen better arguments to counter that (increased opportunity for non-traditional students, destruction of regionalism in the student population, etc etc etc), plus the tangible cash benefits so greatly outweigh any of the intangible negatives or "seedy feelings" in my mind that it becomes a no-brainer.

Doesn't actually look like it's a real gain. Iowa would probably save money by NOT having sports, men or women. That's not the right answer either, but it's really not about the fact that it's "dirty money" coming in, it's how it's spent, handled, and then how the students are prioritized - poorly - because of it.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Doesn't actually look like it's a real gain. Iowa would probably save money by NOT having sports, men or women. That's not the right answer either, but it's really not about the fact that it's "dirty money" coming in, it's how it's spent, handled, and then how the students are prioritized - poorly - because of it.

At WORST, the effect is money-neutral, since the program takes in everything it needs to pay out. However, that ignores the associated profits that come with having fans in town to see games, the real value of national reputation, income and advertising from the Big Ten Network/other TV appearances, and assorted other benefits the school enjoys that are decidedly not money-neutral.

In fact, I can't see a single way in which Iowa would "save money" by eliminating sports. I can see dozens of ways in which they can and do capitalize on sports, though.

For a school like Iowa, who is at least break-even with its athletic programs, all of these ancillary benefits pile up purely into the profit category. I suspect that even a relatively large loss on sports still creates enough of the ancillary advantages to push the net total into a win for the school.

Now, step out of the mid-tier and into the OSUs and UTs of the world, and you're stacking money like it's your job. Thus, the haves/have-nots disparity - many schools get a tangible or ancillary benefit. Others bring in nine figures.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

At WORST, the effect is money-neutral, since the program takes in everything it needs to pay out. However, that ignores the associated profits that come with having fans in town to see games, the real value of national reputation, income and advertising from the Big Ten Network/other TV appearances, and assorted other benefits the school enjoys that are decidedly not money-neutral.

In fact, I can't see a single way in which Iowa would "save money" by eliminating sports. I can see dozens of ways in which they can and do capitalize on sports, though.

For a school like Iowa, who is at least break-even with its athletic programs, all of these ancillary benefits pile up purely into the profit category. I suspect that even a relatively large loss on sports still creates enough of the ancillary advantages to push the net total into a win for the school.

Now, step out of the mid-tier and into the OSUs and UTs of the world, and you're stacking money like it's your job. Thus, the haves/have-nots disparity - many schools get a tangible or ancillary benefit. Others bring in nine figures.

Yet many schools without football teams manage to draw students just fine. I'm not saying the system isn't working for Iowa, I'm just saying it COULD work differently just as well. And none of that even brings in the idea of paying student athletes for their time and effort at bringing the school $$$$. If all schools see is the money, then they're doing it wrong. Their priorities are out of whack, and maybe it's because they're not being financially supported by their states, but they're not a sports school, they're a university.

Also, when a budget matches up dollar to dollar like that, I flat out don't believe it. There's no way that's an accurate representation of money actually earned/spent.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Also, when a budget matches up dollar to dollar like that, I flat out don't believe it. There's no way that's an accurate representation of money actually earned/spent.

The nature of a (non-profit, public) college budget is that projections have to match up to the dollar - I'm sure you'll understand why, if you consider the accounting issues for a bit.

Obviously they won't at the end of the year (although it will be close) - last year, I believe the final #s put a couple hundred grand back into the general fund, but I don't have a source readily available (just what I recall from the last time I used this example).

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

The nature of a (non-profit, public) college budget is that projections have to match up to the dollar - I'm sure you'll understand why, if you consider the accounting issues for a bit.

Obviously they won't at the end of the year (although it will be close) - last year, I believe the final #s put a couple hundred grand back into the general fund, but I don't have a source readily available (just what I recall from the last time I used this example).

Yeah I know, that's the intended budget, my point is that those are indeed estimates - the budget, not the financial reports for years past.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yeah I know, that's the intended budget, my point is that those are indeed estimates - the budget, not the financial reports for years past.

OK - well, here are the actuals for '08 (pg 10) and estimated for '09 (pg 42) showing an operating profit (latest of each I can find). I think you underestimate the accountability required of a public institution's projections here, but hey.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~fusbudg/2009_comp_fiscal_rpt.pdf
http://www.uiowa.edu/~fusbudg/2010_f...udget_narr.pdf

Hopefully that's soup-to-nuts enough?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

OK - well, here are the actuals for '08 (pg 10) and estimated for '09 (pg 42) showing an operating profit (latest of each I can find). I think you underestimate the accountability required of a public institution's projections here, but hey.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~fusbudg/2009_comp_fiscal_rpt.pdf
http://www.uiowa.edu/~fusbudg/2010_f...udget_narr.pdf

Hopefully that's soup-to-nuts enough?

Ok, you're overestimating exactly how much I was emphasizing that point. It was an aside at best. Yay they're making a profit, that's nice for them, but it doesn't really matter to me as my position is based on principle more than profit.

And why would you think that I didn't think such reports existed? I'm well aware of reporting requirements for public institutions.