[BostonCard]

[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=12297.msg121205#msg121205 date=1435094755]
For those that hate the idea that DAPER (Stanford Athletics) includes revenue from the golf course as part of its operating budget, I trust those same types will be quite upset to learn that ASU will fuel its budget with fees from office buildings and residential units to be built on a portion of ASU's campus assigned to the athletic department.

I guess I should be careful about speaking for others, but I think that nobody here was upset that DAPER includes revenue from the golf course as part of its operating budget. The issue was that if you want to understand how much revenue is raised specifically from intercollegiate athletics, then the golf course doesn't really count.


As to the ASU plan - I suppose it's better than what most schools do which is to use obligatory student fees and money from the general budget to subsidize the athletics program. [ASU currently subsidizes it's intercollegiate athletics program by $10 million according to the USA Today report,  http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ ]

I can imagine a host of policy/tax/legal problems, but perhaps they can all be worked out satisfactorily.
[/quote]

Yes!

DAPER = Department of Athletics, Physical Education and Recreation

While the department includes intercollegiate athletics, it is so much more.  It's budget includes revenue directly tied to intercollegiate athletics (for example, revenue from the Pac-12 TV deal), plus revenue that comes from the University (presumably from tuition) for faculty (mostly coaches) to teach physical education classes, plus student fees for club sports, plus facility fees, including the Stanford Golf Course.

Of course golf course fees should be part of DAPER's budget.  But since DAPER is not synonymous with intercollegiate athletics, an accounting that seeks to look at the books for the subset of DAPER that deals with intercollegiate athletics shouldn't count sources of revenue for DAPER that are not directly related to intercollegiate athletics.  It seems like this distinction is lost for some people.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=12297.msg121205#msg121205 date=1435094755]
For those that hate the idea that DAPER (Stanford Athletics) includes revenue from the golf course as part of its operating budget, I trust those same types will be quite upset to learn that ASU will fuel its budget with fees from office buildings and residential units to be built on a portion of ASU's campus assigned to the athletic department.

I guess I should be careful about speaking for others, but I think that nobody here was upset that DAPER includes revenue from the golf course as part of its operating budget. The issue was that if you want to understand how much revenue is raised specifically from intercollegiate athletics, then the golf course doesn't really count.


As to the ASU plan - I suppose it's better than what most schools do which is to use obligatory student fees and money from the general budget to subsidize the athletics program. [ASU currently subsidizes it's intercollegiate athletics program by $10 million according to the USA Today report,  http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ ]

I can imagine a host of policy/tax/legal problems, but perhaps they can all be worked out satisfactorily.
[/quote]

Yes!

DAPER = Department of Athletics, Physical Education and Recreation

While the department includes intercollegiate athletics, it is so much more.  It's budget includes revenue directly tied to intercollegiate athletics (for example, revenue from the Pac-12 TV deal), plus revenue that comes from the University (presumably from tuition) for faculty (mostly coaches) to teach physical education classes, plus student fees for club sports, plus facility fees, including the Stanford Golf Course.

Of course golf course fees should be part of DAPER's budget.  But since DAPER is not synonymous with intercollegiate athletics, an accounting that seeks to look at the books for the subset of DAPER that deals with intercollegiate athletics shouldn't count sources of revenue for DAPER that are not directly related to intercollegiate athletics.  It seems like this distinction is lost for some people.

BC