[terry]

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.

Farm93 --

I do not think this is an accurate description of the issue that has been discussed on this board regarding golf course revenue.

Nobody here has disputed the idea that the athletic department budget properly includes golf course revenue. Likewise, athletic department revenue also properly includes revenue from P.E. classes, recreation programs, and the like. That is all legitimate revenue for the athletic department. Any profit from those activities can be used to support varsity sports, if the athletic department so chooses.

Here is the issue: some people are interested in knowing how much revenue is earned from intercollegiate athletics. That would include gate receipts, broadcast revenue, revenue sharing from the Pac-12, and the like.

Most golf course revenue is not earned from intercollegiate athletics. So, for purposes of counting revenue earned from intercollegiate athletics, most golf course revenue should not count. Nor should revenue from P.E. classes, recreation programs, the equestrian center, etc.

This does not mean that these sources of revenue are not legitimate. It does not mean that these sources of revenue shouldn't be included in the athletic department budget. It means only that these revenues should not be included in calculating revenues from intercollegiate athletics.

This is not an issue of purity. It's an issue of accounting. If you want to know total athletic department revenue, you get one number. If you want to know revenue from intercollegiate sports, you get a different number. Neither number is more legitimate or purer than the other. These numbers just measure different things.

I don't think anybody has posted here that golf course revenues are misleading to athletes trying to understand the resources available to them. Rather, I and others have posted that revenues from the golf course should not be included in calculating revenue from intercollegiate athletics. That is not the same thing at all.

[terry]

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.

Farm93 --

I do not think this is an accurate description of the issue that has been discussed on this board regarding golf course revenue.

Nobody here has disputed the idea that the athletic department budget properly includes golf course revenue. Likewise, athletic department revenue also properly includes revenue from P.E. classes, recreation programs, and the like. That is all legitimate revenue for the athletic department. Any profit from those activities can be used to support varsity sports, if the athletic department so chooses.

Here is the issue: some people are interested in knowing how much revenue is earned from intercollegiate athletics. That would include gate receipts, broadcast revenue, revenue sharing from the Pac-12, and the like.

Most golf course revenue is not earned from intercollegiate athletics. So, for purposes of counting revenue earned from intercollegiate athletics, most golf course revenue should not count. Nor should revenue from P.E. classes, recreation programs, the equestrian center, etc.

This does not mean that these sources of revenue are not legitimate. It does not mean that these sources of revenue shouldn't be included in the athletic department budget. It means only that these revenues should not be included in calculating revenues from intercollegiate athletics.

This is not an issue of purity. It's an issue of accounting. If you want to know total athletic department revenue, you get one number. If you want to know revenue from intercollegiate sports, you get a different number. Neither number is more legitimate or purer than the other. These numbers just measure different things.

I don't think anybody has posted here that golf course revenues are misleading to athletes trying to understand the resources available to them. Rather, I and others have posted that revenues from the golf course should not be included in calculating revenue from intercollegiate athletics. That is not the same thing at all.