[terry]

if the golf course revenue isn't counted toward the AD, where would it better fit?  I think the golf course is inherently an AD asset

I agree that golf course revenue is properly counted as athletic department revenue. I also agree that the golf course is an asset that can contribute its profits toward financing Stanford's athletic department.

If one were trying to measure Stanford's revenue from its intercollegiate athletics programs, I think most of the golf course revenue should not be counted. Very little, if any, golf course revenue comes from intercollegiate athletics.

As others have noted, the $7.99 million in revenue from the golf course and stables is a gross figure. The net income after deducting expenses would be less.

[terry]

if the golf course revenue isn't counted toward the AD, where would it better fit?  I think the golf course is inherently an AD asset

I agree that golf course revenue is properly counted as athletic department revenue. I also agree that the golf course is an asset that can contribute its profits toward financing Stanford's athletic department.

If one were trying to measure Stanford's revenue from its intercollegiate athletics programs, I think most of the golf course revenue should not be counted. Very little, if any, golf course revenue comes from intercollegiate athletics.

As others have noted, the $7.99 million in revenue from the golf course and stables is a gross figure. The net income after deducting expenses would be less.