Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2018 7:17:24 GMT -8
Walked by Goss yesterday and saw the expansion. Looks dreamy. Got me wondering about what kind of revenue Beaver baseball produces as compared to FB and BB? Anyone know?
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Sept 9, 2018 10:08:01 GMT -8
Walked by Goss yesterday and saw the expansion. Looks dreamy. Got me wondering about what kind of revenue Beaver baseball produces as compared to FB and BB? Anyone know? Depends on how one wants to "juggle" the #s, but baseball doesn't pay for itself... |
|
|
|
Post by believeinthebeavs on Sept 9, 2018 10:42:22 GMT -8
Walked by Goss yesterday and saw the expansion. Looks dreamy. Got me wondering about what kind of revenue Beaver baseball produces as compared to FB and BB? Anyone know? Depends on how one wants to "juggle" the #s, but baseball doesn't pay for itself... A few years ago a dumb ass AD promised a profitable program in just 7 years from starting it. Didn't happen. I heard at that time that lsu was the closest and they still lost thousands per game. |
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Sept 9, 2018 11:50:32 GMT -8
I've posted this sentiment a hundred times on this board: the numbers are cooked. Whenever you see a complaint about how much these programs cost, they are always conveniently leaving out revenues and including expenses in ways that make athletics look like a money loser.
And even sports fans believe it.
Not mentioned among the revenues: apparel licensing, campus-wide concession contracts, parking (usually, not sure about OSU's accounting).
Included in expenses: full tuition and fees for athletes (as though a university with 25,000 students has zero economies of scale), full marketing expenses (as though the school in general does not benefit in any other way from it).
And that isn't even touching on the most obvious - increases in non-athletic giving and the overall marketing benefit.
Fortunately, Ed Ray knows this, and we no longer live in the hell that was the McVicar/Baughman regime. A fair accounting would almost certainly show that baseball makes a modest profit for the school, even if we don't include the intangible benefits. It's likely true for football and both basketball programs.
Ed Ray recently did something for which he deserves a statue in Parker Plaza. He changed how athletic scholarships are going to be accounted for, to recognize that the academic departments shouldn't show a "profit" on every athlete. I don't know how this is going to affect the annual reports, but it should be much more flattering to the athletic programs.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Sept 9, 2018 12:12:03 GMT -8
I've posted this sentiment a hundred times on this board: the numbers are cooked. Whenever you see a complaint about how much these programs cost, they are always conveniently leaving out revenues and including expenses in ways that make athletics look like a money loser. And even sports fans believe it. Not mentioned among the revenues: apparel licensing, campus-wide concession contracts, parking (usually, not sure about OSU's accounting). Included in expenses: full tuition and fees for athletes (as though a university with 25,000 students has zero economies of scale), full marketing expenses (as though the school in general does not benefit in any other way from it). And that isn't even touching on the most obvious - increases in non-athletic giving and the overall marketing benefit. Fortunately, Ed Ray knows this, and we no longer live in the hell that was the McVicar/Baughman regime. A fair accounting would almost certainly show that baseball makes a modest profit for the school, even if we don't include the intangible benefits. It's likely true for football and both basketball programs. Ed Ray recently did something for which he deserves a statue in Parker Plaza. He changed how athletic scholarships are going to be accounted for, to recognize that the academic departments shouldn't show a "profit" on every athlete. I don't know how this is going to affect the annual reports, but it should be much more flattering to the athletic programs. The "basic" #s are pretty simple... "baseball" lays out more than it brings in... PERIOD. A person can say #s are "cooked". You can go into infinitesimal detail of finances (some which can never be fully accounted)... BUT, baseball (and every other sport not called football) do not pay for themselves in anyway shape or form. All the other stuff is window dressing and just another way to "cook". Program expenses > program revenue. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2018 13:10:22 GMT -8
I've posted this sentiment a hundred times on this board: the numbers are cooked. Whenever you see a complaint about how much these programs cost, they are always conveniently leaving out revenues and including expenses in ways that make athletics look like a money loser. And even sports fans believe it. Not mentioned among the revenues: apparel licensing, campus-wide concession contracts, parking (usually, not sure about OSU's accounting). Included in expenses: full tuition and fees for athletes (as though a university with 25,000 students has zero economies of scale), full marketing expenses (as though the school in general does not benefit in any other way from it). And that isn't even touching on the most obvious - increases in non-athletic giving and the overall marketing benefit. Fortunately, Ed Ray knows this, and we no longer live in the hell that was the McVicar/Baughman regime. A fair accounting would almost certainly show that baseball makes a modest profit for the school, even if we don't include the intangible benefits. It's likely true for football and both basketball programs. Ed Ray recently did something for which he deserves a statue in Parker Plaza. He changed how athletic scholarships are going to be accounted for, to recognize that the academic departments shouldn't show a "profit" on every athlete. I don't know how this is going to affect the annual reports, but it should be much more flattering to the athletic programs. The "basic" #s are pretty simple... "baseball" lays out more than it brings in... PERIOD. A person can say #s are "cooked". You can go into infinitesimal detail of finances (some which can never be fully accounted)... BUT, baseball (and every other sport not called football) do not pay for themselves in anyway shape or form. All the other stuff is window dressing and just another way to "cook". Program expenses > program revenue. back to the question- how does the baseball revenue look (including TV or other CWS related accounting entries) compared to the other sports? |
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Sept 9, 2018 13:50:30 GMT -8
No one knows . . . there are no breakouts for what share of the Pac-12 network money is for baseball . . . what share of apparel sales are for baseball . . . what share of non-athletic giving is due to baseball . . . and so on. A lot of these things can't be calculated, but that's no reason to pretend that they don't exist.
And bl0chese does not know what he is talking about. If his statement was true, then there wouldn't be a school in America that had basketball but not football. All those Marquettes and Depauls and Saint Johns and Pepperdines would be rushing to get their football programs up and running - which is obviously not happening. Like I said - even college sports fans believe the big lie, so relentlessly has it been repeated.
If you want to know the truth about anything or anyone - don't listen to the words, observe the actions. Everyone moans about how athletics lose money, but the colleges keep investing in it. At least . . . they invest in certain sports - and baseball is one of the sports they invest in. Coach salaries are rising dramatically and schools are building facilities in every part of the country. 297 university athletic directors aren't ALL idiots.
|
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Sept 9, 2018 14:58:00 GMT -8
Just wondering: Player decides to come to OSU. Is awarded a half-scholarship, not unusual for non head-count sports. The scholarship portion counts as an expense. Is the half the player (or his/her family) pays counted as athletics-generated revenue?
Of course not. But is is revenue, earned because of a specific sport, which would not exist if said athlete was enrolled.
|
|
lefty
Freshman
Posts: 435 
|
Post by lefty on Sept 9, 2018 17:05:53 GMT -8
1/2 scholarships? My grandson's best friend was awarded a 1/2 scholarship (wrestling), but the program was able to "find" plenty of funds to make it a "full ride" it just wasn't classified as a athletic scholarship. Methinks that this is a common practice in baseball too. I wonder how many of these athletes actually have to come up with money to attend college?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tigardbeav on Sept 9, 2018 17:06:46 GMT -8
Once the baseball playoffs start doesn't the NCAA take all revenue from all Regionals/Supers & CWS? They control everything at that point. Hotels, travel, concessions (?) & tickets. So OS does not benefit from hosting playoffs. Other than the championship hardware of course. Look at the merch that is associated with the playoffs. If there is a ncaa logo then they license fee goes to them, not the school. (there may be a small portion kicked back to school) I try not to buy the ncaa stuff and buy directly from the program
|
|
|
|
Post by Tigardbeav on Sept 9, 2018 17:10:05 GMT -8
1/2 scholarships? My grandson's best friend was awarded a 1/2 scholarship (wrestling), but the program was able to "find" plenty of funds to make it a "full ride" it just wasn't classified as a athletic scholarship. Methinks that this is a common practice in baseball too. I wonder how many of these athletes actually have to come up with money to attend college? The wrestling program has endowed all scholarships. Dale Thomas ran lots of camps through the years that paid for those endowments. He knew that if the scholarships were not paid for that it would be easy to eliminate the program. see tsdtr |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Sept 10, 2018 5:49:38 GMT -8
Endowed scholarship or not, not every wrestler gets a full ride because the number of wrestlers far exceeds the NCAA scholarship maximum.
OSU pays a guarantee to the NCAA for hosting regionals/Super Regionals, then takes everything above that. The NCAA does not control the venue finances until the CWS. OSU certainly makes money in the postseason.
|
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Sept 10, 2018 9:01:31 GMT -8
I've posted this sentiment a hundred times on this board: the numbers are cooked. Whenever you see a complaint about how much these programs cost, they are always conveniently leaving out revenues and including expenses in ways that make athletics look like a money loser. And even sports fans believe it. Not mentioned among the revenues: apparel licensing, campus-wide concession contracts, parking (usually, not sure about OSU's accounting). Included in expenses: full tuition and fees for athletes (as though a university with 25,000 students has zero economies of scale), full marketing expenses (as though the school in general does not benefit in any other way from it). And that isn't even touching on the most obvious - increases in non-athletic giving and the overall marketing benefit. Fortunately, Ed Ray knows this, and we no longer live in the hell that was the McVicar/Baughman regime. A fair accounting would almost certainly show that baseball makes a modest profit for the school, even if we don't include the intangible benefits. It's likely true for football and both basketball programs. Ed Ray recently did something for which he deserves a statue in Parker Plaza. He changed how athletic scholarships are going to be accounted for, to recognize that the academic departments shouldn't show a "profit" on every athlete. I don't know how this is going to affect the annual reports, but it should be much more flattering to the athletic programs. Generally speaking, licensing revenue is included in athletic department accounting... they just do not break it down by sport. Where I agree, is that it is a bit misleading to call a scholarship an expense. It really isn't. It is a deduction from revenue. It does not "cost" OSU anything to comp tuition and fees to a player. OSU does not open it's wallet... But, accountant's gotta account. that loss of revenue from the general fund is real. So the Athletic department has to pay the general fund... which is also comical because we subsidize sports right back. In a silly circle of money, much of which is "fake" moving of dollars around. I work with hospital financials. Several years ago, new accounting standards came out stated hospitals could no longer call charity care and bad debt "expenses". same logic. the hospital did not incur expense waiving the bill... they lost revenue. Hospitals were double dipping expenses because they had already considered the actual expenses providing medical services. So then when the bill doesn't get paid, it is like counting that medical service expense twice... and THEN some. It was a significant and worthy change. I would argue athletic department accounting needs to reflect the same philosophy. Scholarships are not expenses. |
|
|
|
Post by mbabeav on Sept 10, 2018 14:45:13 GMT -8
Taken to it's most basic level, all athletic costs are marketing. There may be a few of us that say "my fondest memory of college is that Junior year Statics and Dynamics final", but I bet that has nothing on those of us who can say "our best memories of college are those bowl games, or that moment when a catch by Tyler Graham put a National Title on the figurative OSU mantel. Look at the success of the college endowment drive in the face of a severe recession following two national titles by the baseball team and multiple bowl games by the football team - people and their companies where applicable, gave hundreds of millions to OSU. All those new buildings on campus too. Sure a lot of the money might have come in regardless of sports (and other student-based programs), but they certainly helped far beyond any relatively small deficits.
Also gauge increases in enrollment.
|
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Sept 10, 2018 15:45:11 GMT -8
Generally speaking, licensing revenue is included in athletic department accounting... they just do not break it down by sport.
I just looked at the most recent OSU budgets, and OSU does credit those revenues to Athletics. I know that there are other schools that don't.
While googling around, I found this little 2-page release from OSU. There is an interesting chart on the second page which shows the breakdown on all these tradeoffs between Athletics and the rest of the school.
The bottom line: before Ed Ray changed the accounting, the school was profiting by about $5 million - mostly from the tuition and fees. At the same time, the athletic department showed a loss of about $8 million. God bless Ed Ray for making the change - future budgets will reflect reality much better.
There is also a graph showing the allocated revenues and expenses of the major sports, but they suffer from the same gamesmanship as ever. It appears that the expenses are allocated across sports in a way that makes the minor sports look a lot more expensive. e.g. gymnastics and volleyball pay the same "rent" for Gill as the basketball team.
|
|
