05-21-2015, 08:44 PM
The last five years have been tough for golf, but that is part of any boom bust cycle. There are too many golf courses right now because golf courses were very good back when Tiger was winning majors.
Inefficient revenue or not. True sport or not. The reality is the Stanford golf course for 85 years has been a major part of DAPER's operations and its revenue deserves to be in the top line. In fact, there really is no other home for the facility's revenues. Could you imagine the Title IX lawsuit if Stanford only had a men's team, but decided to slide the golf course facility and its operating budget into another department?
Not every school has their own football stadium, but that does not mean schools that have one should not include ancillary facility revenue from those facilities.
tOSU includes kid camper revenue in their revenues. Michigan has facilities, built by debt, that they concede are bleeding cash. And yet, the corporate rentals of those facilities also sit in their top line. Golf is far from the most quirky item in their revenue tallies. Golf is certainly not the least efficient revenue source for those schools, not that this is the standard for revenue inclusion.
I don't even play the game, but I am confident over 85 years golf and that sport's facility course have done far more for DAPER finances than almost any sport not named football. It might very well be the biggest revenue contributing facility over that time other than the football stadium.Â
Haters gonna hate I guess, but those in the AD know the golf course is important and that is one of the big reasons it is not commonly lumped into "other" like it is in most other big time programs. But importantly even in those programs the golf course revenue does appear to sit in the revenue line. It is just uncommon for it to be big enough to not be "other" and if it makes some feel better to think it is inefficient just one question.
Have you ever seen anyone from the university with access to the financials ask DAPER to close the golf course to save money? Or even demand that DAPER charge students much higher use fees for their access to a money draining luxury enjoyed by only a few students?
I don't think I have ever seen either type of claim. Yet both should be common if it was really a money loser.Â
Inefficient revenue or not. True sport or not. The reality is the Stanford golf course for 85 years has been a major part of DAPER's operations and its revenue deserves to be in the top line. In fact, there really is no other home for the facility's revenues. Could you imagine the Title IX lawsuit if Stanford only had a men's team, but decided to slide the golf course facility and its operating budget into another department?
Not every school has their own football stadium, but that does not mean schools that have one should not include ancillary facility revenue from those facilities.
tOSU includes kid camper revenue in their revenues. Michigan has facilities, built by debt, that they concede are bleeding cash. And yet, the corporate rentals of those facilities also sit in their top line. Golf is far from the most quirky item in their revenue tallies. Golf is certainly not the least efficient revenue source for those schools, not that this is the standard for revenue inclusion.
I don't even play the game, but I am confident over 85 years golf and that sport's facility course have done far more for DAPER finances than almost any sport not named football. It might very well be the biggest revenue contributing facility over that time other than the football stadium.Â
Haters gonna hate I guess, but those in the AD know the golf course is important and that is one of the big reasons it is not commonly lumped into "other" like it is in most other big time programs. But importantly even in those programs the golf course revenue does appear to sit in the revenue line. It is just uncommon for it to be big enough to not be "other" and if it makes some feel better to think it is inefficient just one question.
Have you ever seen anyone from the university with access to the financials ask DAPER to close the golf course to save money? Or even demand that DAPER charge students much higher use fees for their access to a money draining luxury enjoyed by only a few students?
I don't think I have ever seen either type of claim. Yet both should be common if it was really a money loser.Â