[BostonCard]

[quote author=terry link=topic=12297.msg121224#msg121224 date=1435102819]
+1 to CTcard and Boston Card. Golf course revenue is legitimate athletic department revenue. Nobody has said otherwise. But it is not revenue from intercollegiate sports.

But then what about weddings or inflated rent-backs to other departments? UCB AD's total revenue includes those things.  The argument presented by others was that those golf proceeds were in some way misleading for athletes trying to understand the resources available to them.

In my view, the Stanford golf course probably should not count, IF, the golf course was not for intercollegiate competition use.  However, the expenses associated with operating the course can all be assigned to the teams, then the revenue from Stanford types using the course becomes incremental revenue from a certain point of view.  Clearly the DAPER runs massive deficits using any of the more restrictive definitions of revenue.  And yet, if offsets those deficits with revenue from non-intercollegiate athletic activities.

It is similar to how the DAPER and other D1 programs rents stadiums and arenas to summer campers. That revenue is not pure intercollegiate sports revenue either, but most successful programs are pulling in a few million in easy camper revenue from facilities not in use.  There are costs to having the kids on campus, but the top line includes the whole bounty.  Those activities supplement AD intercollegiate operational expenses.

Once you pull layers of the onion away some are essentially trying to understand how much revenue comes in exclusively from event operations.  That more pure number is called out available to all as a sub-total, but an AD that relied solely on that very limited and defined revenue stream is way behind the times.  Texas collects $60+ million in football gate.  They win!  Though they have a budget of $150+ million, so even they really don't rely just on their intercollegiate contest gates.  But those sub-totals are there.  And every AD reports them as sub-totals because they all get meaningful revenue from non-core activities that then is pushed back to support the core activity expenses.

Ultimately not many ADs are that pure.  I suspect the closest to purity are in D3 where there really isn't any way to get creative non-core revenue.

Oddly, in the end I guess even my point of view is out of date and ASU is leading the way in creative accounting.  I guess one has got to be creative to thrive in D1 against Texas and their $150 million in revenue, so props to ASU I guess.  Sure hope SJSU just folds up its football program before they try to steal Santa Clara County property tax revenue.
[/quote]

Golf course revenue goes to DAPER, as well it should.  In the subset of reporting that talks about intercollegiate athletics revenue, the golf course fees do not count.  I can't speak to other schools, but I would have to believe that if department property is being leased out for weddings, etc., it would be reasonable to include it as department revenue, but improper for it to be considered intercollegiate athletics revenue.  I'm not sure to what extent other schools play shenanigans by calling facilities rental income intercollegiate revenue, but by my accounting, I think that would be wrong, and I suspect CTcard and Terry would agree.  But I don't know that count it as intercollegiate athletics revenue.  Terry... do you know?

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=terry link=topic=12297.msg121224#msg121224 date=1435102819]
+1 to CTcard and Boston Card. Golf course revenue is legitimate athletic department revenue. Nobody has said otherwise. But it is not revenue from intercollegiate sports.

But then what about weddings or inflated rent-backs to other departments? UCB AD's total revenue includes those things.  The argument presented by others was that those golf proceeds were in some way misleading for athletes trying to understand the resources available to them.

In my view, the Stanford golf course probably should not count, IF, the golf course was not for intercollegiate competition use.  However, the expenses associated with operating the course can all be assigned to the teams, then the revenue from Stanford types using the course becomes incremental revenue from a certain point of view.  Clearly the DAPER runs massive deficits using any of the more restrictive definitions of revenue.  And yet, if offsets those deficits with revenue from non-intercollegiate athletic activities.

It is similar to how the DAPER and other D1 programs rents stadiums and arenas to summer campers. That revenue is not pure intercollegiate sports revenue either, but most successful programs are pulling in a few million in easy camper revenue from facilities not in use.  There are costs to having the kids on campus, but the top line includes the whole bounty.  Those activities supplement AD intercollegiate operational expenses.

Once you pull layers of the onion away some are essentially trying to understand how much revenue comes in exclusively from event operations.  That more pure number is called out available to all as a sub-total, but an AD that relied solely on that very limited and defined revenue stream is way behind the times.  Texas collects $60+ million in football gate.  They win!  Though they have a budget of $150+ million, so even they really don't rely just on their intercollegiate contest gates.  But those sub-totals are there.  And every AD reports them as sub-totals because they all get meaningful revenue from non-core activities that then is pushed back to support the core activity expenses.

Ultimately not many ADs are that pure.  I suspect the closest to purity are in D3 where there really isn't any way to get creative non-core revenue.

Oddly, in the end I guess even my point of view is out of date and ASU is leading the way in creative accounting.  I guess one has got to be creative to thrive in D1 against Texas and their $150 million in revenue, so props to ASU I guess.  Sure hope SJSU just folds up its football program before they try to steal Santa Clara County property tax revenue.
[/quote]

Golf course revenue goes to DAPER, as well it should.  In the subset of reporting that talks about intercollegiate athletics revenue, the golf course fees do not count.  I can't speak to other schools, but I would have to believe that if department property is being leased out for weddings, etc., it would be reasonable to include it as department revenue, but improper for it to be considered intercollegiate athletics revenue.  I'm not sure to what extent other schools play shenanigans by calling facilities rental income intercollegiate revenue, but by my accounting, I think that would be wrong, and I suspect CTcard and Terry would agree.  But I don't know that count it as intercollegiate athletics revenue.  Terry... do you know?

BC