04-13-2015, 02:06 PM
I know you think the golf course doesn't count, but trust me the AD has relied on it for quite a while. Seems like you want to just count activities that directly, and only, support intercollegiate athletics, but that ideal is flawed.
UTexas gets big money from their Texas Longhorns channel, same for BYU. That's not really part of running non-profit intercollegiate athletics. Yet the revenue UT gets from their TV deal is very real and is plowed into the AD's budget.
The golf course fees have gone directly to the AD budget for a long time. DAPER is responsible for the golf course and the facility is used for NCAA competitions. There are other schools with golf courses, and I can give you a quirky example. Michigan has a golf course too. I am sure they get greens fee revenue (for about 4 months a year), but they also use the course for parking at Michigan football games. That parking revenue is rather massive since it is the best parking near the stadium. That parking revenue should count, of course. So if a school uses their golf course for football fan cars it counts, but if it uses it for the students' championship golf and X-country events it doesn't? That would be odd.
Need another example? A lot of schools (ie. Texas, UCB) hold events at their football stadiums (weddings, receptions, etc.). In many cases that money gets captured as AD revenue if the facility is on campus and operated by the AD. A wedding at a stadium really has little to do with intercollegiate athletics. Yet we all know UCB AD will happily bank that money if they can find alums willing to party up there in that press box with Bay Area views. And really they should count it since the stadium, and all of its uses, support the efforts AD. And how many Texas alums would hold weddings at the facility if it was just the site of an old library or dorm?
The list of odd exceptions could be rather endless. If it helps fund the department responsible for athletics it should count.
The IM fees are a bit quirky, but it really is the same as mandatory student fees for D-1 athletics. Facilities use fees vs Sports subsidies. Might matter in some realm, but really they are still transfers from students to the AD that the school has permitted. The AD probably spends very little to let the non-athletes play/train on the facilities. They theoretically are using some facility for a fraction of the day (like Avery). Those facilities would be there anyway, depreciating with or without the student use. Supply a few lifeguards and collect big facility use fees, etc. Should count if the AD relies upon those transfers to fund the machine.
In the end, Stanford spends $110 million on intercollegiate athletics. Stanford enjoys a massive sports complex on campus that creates many financial and non-financial benefits. Stanford also gets large AD gifts that do not fall into that annual budget. And those resources (including some that other schools can't replicate) are major forces in Stanford's Directors' cup success. It is all part of the not so secret sauce.Â
UTexas gets big money from their Texas Longhorns channel, same for BYU. That's not really part of running non-profit intercollegiate athletics. Yet the revenue UT gets from their TV deal is very real and is plowed into the AD's budget.
The golf course fees have gone directly to the AD budget for a long time. DAPER is responsible for the golf course and the facility is used for NCAA competitions. There are other schools with golf courses, and I can give you a quirky example. Michigan has a golf course too. I am sure they get greens fee revenue (for about 4 months a year), but they also use the course for parking at Michigan football games. That parking revenue is rather massive since it is the best parking near the stadium. That parking revenue should count, of course. So if a school uses their golf course for football fan cars it counts, but if it uses it for the students' championship golf and X-country events it doesn't? That would be odd.
Need another example? A lot of schools (ie. Texas, UCB) hold events at their football stadiums (weddings, receptions, etc.). In many cases that money gets captured as AD revenue if the facility is on campus and operated by the AD. A wedding at a stadium really has little to do with intercollegiate athletics. Yet we all know UCB AD will happily bank that money if they can find alums willing to party up there in that press box with Bay Area views. And really they should count it since the stadium, and all of its uses, support the efforts AD. And how many Texas alums would hold weddings at the facility if it was just the site of an old library or dorm?
The list of odd exceptions could be rather endless. If it helps fund the department responsible for athletics it should count.
The IM fees are a bit quirky, but it really is the same as mandatory student fees for D-1 athletics. Facilities use fees vs Sports subsidies. Might matter in some realm, but really they are still transfers from students to the AD that the school has permitted. The AD probably spends very little to let the non-athletes play/train on the facilities. They theoretically are using some facility for a fraction of the day (like Avery). Those facilities would be there anyway, depreciating with or without the student use. Supply a few lifeguards and collect big facility use fees, etc. Should count if the AD relies upon those transfers to fund the machine.
In the end, Stanford spends $110 million on intercollegiate athletics. Stanford enjoys a massive sports complex on campus that creates many financial and non-financial benefits. Stanford also gets large AD gifts that do not fall into that annual budget. And those resources (including some that other schools can't replicate) are major forces in Stanford's Directors' cup success. It is all part of the not so secret sauce.Â