Farm93 --
There are two different issues here.
One is the total athletic department budget. I'm not concerned about that at the moment.
The other is the budget for intercollegiate athletics, which is a subset of the total athletic department budget. That's what I'm trying to figure out here. Revenue and expenses relating to P.E. classes, intramurals, recreation, and wellness are not related to intercollegiate athletics. These items don't belong in the intercollegiate athletics budget.
Likewise, revenue and expenses relating to the golf course are not related to intercollegiate athletics (at least, not for the most part -- there are some intercollegiate events on the golf course). So, with a few exceptions, golf course revenues and expenses don't belong in the intercollegiate athletics budget.
I think it should be pretty easy for all of us to agree on that. It's just basic accounting.
If the golf course makes a profit, the athletic department may choose to use that non-intercollegiate revenue source to subsidize intercollegiate athletics. That money essentially would be a contribution from the university to subsidize the intercollegiate program. But that doesn't mean that all of the golf course's revenues and expenses belong in the intercollegiate athletics budget. That would be bad accounting.
The document linked by 82lsju (http://gostanford.com/fls/30600/pdf/givi...M_ID=30600) shows a total athletic department revenue budget of $97 million in 2012-13. That appears to include everything that flows through the athletic department's books -- not just revenues from the intercollegiate athletic program, but all revenues. Some of these revenues clearly are not related to intercollegiate athletics. About $10.6 million relates to P.E., recreation, and wellness, none of which belongs in the intercollegiate athletics budget. Another $8.3 million relates to the golf course and equestrian center. Most of this money, if not all of it, does not come from intercollegiate athletics. So, revenues from intercollegiate athletics would appear to have been about $78 million in that year. A portion of the golf course revenue may have been used to subsidize intercollegiate athletics. This document doesn't tell us. Using golf course profits as a subsidy for intercollegiate athletics might allow the intercollegiate athletics programs to increase their budget by a few million. But still, it would appear that the intercollegiate athletics budget would have been in the $80 million range for that year.
Those numbers don't come close to the $110 million listed in the Equity in Athletics Disclosure figures for 2013-14. That $110 million is supposed to represent the budget for intercollegiate athletics only. So it should not have anything in it relating to P.E. classes, recreation, or wellness, and it shouldn't have most of the golf course's operations. Why is there such a big difference between this $110 million and the $80 million that we get from the document linked above? Does the $110 million have some capital improvements in it? Did revenues from intercollegiate athletics go up $30 million in one year? I don't know. Maybe somebody else does. Until someone can explain that discrepancy, I am skeptical of the $110 million figure.
There are two different issues here.
One is the total athletic department budget. I'm not concerned about that at the moment.
The other is the budget for intercollegiate athletics, which is a subset of the total athletic department budget. That's what I'm trying to figure out here. Revenue and expenses relating to P.E. classes, intramurals, recreation, and wellness are not related to intercollegiate athletics. These items don't belong in the intercollegiate athletics budget.
Likewise, revenue and expenses relating to the golf course are not related to intercollegiate athletics (at least, not for the most part -- there are some intercollegiate events on the golf course). So, with a few exceptions, golf course revenues and expenses don't belong in the intercollegiate athletics budget.
I think it should be pretty easy for all of us to agree on that. It's just basic accounting.
If the golf course makes a profit, the athletic department may choose to use that non-intercollegiate revenue source to subsidize intercollegiate athletics. That money essentially would be a contribution from the university to subsidize the intercollegiate program. But that doesn't mean that all of the golf course's revenues and expenses belong in the intercollegiate athletics budget. That would be bad accounting.
The document linked by 82lsju (http://gostanford.com/fls/30600/pdf/givi...M_ID=30600) shows a total athletic department revenue budget of $97 million in 2012-13. That appears to include everything that flows through the athletic department's books -- not just revenues from the intercollegiate athletic program, but all revenues. Some of these revenues clearly are not related to intercollegiate athletics. About $10.6 million relates to P.E., recreation, and wellness, none of which belongs in the intercollegiate athletics budget. Another $8.3 million relates to the golf course and equestrian center. Most of this money, if not all of it, does not come from intercollegiate athletics. So, revenues from intercollegiate athletics would appear to have been about $78 million in that year. A portion of the golf course revenue may have been used to subsidize intercollegiate athletics. This document doesn't tell us. Using golf course profits as a subsidy for intercollegiate athletics might allow the intercollegiate athletics programs to increase their budget by a few million. But still, it would appear that the intercollegiate athletics budget would have been in the $80 million range for that year.
Those numbers don't come close to the $110 million listed in the Equity in Athletics Disclosure figures for 2013-14. That $110 million is supposed to represent the budget for intercollegiate athletics only. So it should not have anything in it relating to P.E. classes, recreation, or wellness, and it shouldn't have most of the golf course's operations. Why is there such a big difference between this $110 million and the $80 million that we get from the document linked above? Does the $110 million have some capital improvements in it? Did revenues from intercollegiate athletics go up $30 million in one year? I don't know. Maybe somebody else does. Until someone can explain that discrepancy, I am skeptical of the $110 million figure.