[Goose]

While undoubtedly true (I work in healthcare where "costs" are a joke), and certainly money is fungible, in this particular case it would be harder to engage in clever accounting to make things look worse because we are talking about marginal costs, not costs averaged over the entire budget.  Thus, you can't really shift fixed costs to count under the cut sports (or move revenue to other sports).  Thus, the AD referred to "total incremental funding" not "total cost".

Sure you can. You can do it any way you want if you don't give out the details of what the numbers mean and where they came from. You can take any fixed cost and ascribe whatever percentage you chose to each sport. Unless somebody knows that you did that, they have to assume you aren't "cheating". However, since you don't give out that kind of information, anything is possible. "Marginal Costs" are what the AD says they are. Honest? No. Easy to do? Yes, because you don't get audited.

Unless you are suggesting that Stanford is outright lying, the only percentage of a fixed cost you can ascribe is 0% because by definition, fixed costs are not included in calculations of marginal or incremental costs.


BC

I've seen other universities do the same. Add on a bunch of fixed overhead and claim reinstatement would have to cover that cost. Happens frequently.

Yes BC, I am suggesting that they are cooking the books. I am sure those involved would say they aren't lying, they are only "allocating costs". What is a direct cost and what is an indirect cost is often a matter of accounting policy, not reality. Companies that have CPFF contracts with the DOD have massive overhead costs that are arguably direct costs. They aren't lying, they are just configuring their accounting practices to their best advantage. In that case, the DOD can actually audit them, but it still happens big time. Nobody audits the ADs assertions about what crew actually costs. We can look at their claims and say "That seems way too high to me", but since we don't actually know where the numbers came from and can't verify them if we did, it is a "trust me" situation. I don't, I have seen how this works.

[Goose]

While undoubtedly true (I work in healthcare where "costs" are a joke), and certainly money is fungible, in this particular case it would be harder to engage in clever accounting to make things look worse because we are talking about marginal costs, not costs averaged over the entire budget.  Thus, you can't really shift fixed costs to count under the cut sports (or move revenue to other sports).  Thus, the AD referred to "total incremental funding" not "total cost".

Sure you can. You can do it any way you want if you don't give out the details of what the numbers mean and where they came from. You can take any fixed cost and ascribe whatever percentage you chose to each sport. Unless somebody knows that you did that, they have to assume you aren't "cheating". However, since you don't give out that kind of information, anything is possible. "Marginal Costs" are what the AD says they are. Honest? No. Easy to do? Yes, because you don't get audited.

Unless you are suggesting that Stanford is outright lying, the only percentage of a fixed cost you can ascribe is 0% because by definition, fixed costs are not included in calculations of marginal or incremental costs.


BC

I've seen other universities do the same. Add on a bunch of fixed overhead and claim reinstatement would have to cover that cost. Happens frequently.

Yes BC, I am suggesting that they are cooking the books. I am sure those involved would say they aren't lying, they are only "allocating costs". What is a direct cost and what is an indirect cost is often a matter of accounting policy, not reality. Companies that have CPFF contracts with the DOD have massive overhead costs that are arguably direct costs. They aren't lying, they are just configuring their accounting practices to their best advantage. In that case, the DOD can actually audit them, but it still happens big time. Nobody audits the ADs assertions about what crew actually costs. We can look at their claims and say "That seems way too high to me", but since we don't actually know where the numbers came from and can't verify them if we did, it is a "trust me" situation. I don't, I have seen how this works.