Marquette BBall by the $$$$$

[Clarence]

Fascinating link

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/18/news/companies/basketball_profits/index.htm

Hard to believe that Marquette is 2nd in the nation in expenses.

[Sir Lawrence]

Not a bad return on the investment, however.

Dear Lord, look at the money Louisville makes on bb. 

[HouWarrior]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ncaa-finances.htm

To really learn/study and compare athletic finances, one has to see which programs are self sustaining vs those reliant on tax or student fees revenues to subsidize the sports. Very few pay for themselves, and almost all draw support from outside sources (fees, alumni, boosters, or taxes). Shared facilities/costs in FB/BB schools also make specific program revenue/expenses hard to gauge. In the above site public reporting schools (not Marquette) are compared. It is stunning to see how many "big time" programs require big percentage support from the tax/fees or outside sources, and how many still result in large deficits--- college athletics are a "loss leader", and not self sustaining.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Fascinating link

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/18/news/companies/basketball_profits/index.htm

Hard to believe that Marquette is 2nd in the nation in expenses.

The only problem is that there are way too many apples to cactus comparisons.  Not every school handles scholarship expenses the same way (if at all, some are just earmarked as free with no expense allocation), costs for facility usage, coaching salaries, etc, etc. 

It's fun to look at, but the reality is that the data is not uniform which makes the analysis incomplete and often incorrect.

[MuMark]

To compare MU to some others you would really need to know how much they pay for rent at the BC. Most of the other programs who make big profits have a facility that they own.

A number of schools on the list have expenses that exactly equal revenues which brings the accuracy of the article into question.

[goodgreatgrand]

The only problem is that there are way too many apples to cactus comparisons.  Not every school handles scholarship expenses the same way (if at all, some are just earmarked as free with no expense allocation), costs for facility usage, coaching salaries, etc, etc. 

It's fun to look at, but the reality is that the data is not uniform which makes the analysis incomplete and often incorrect.

Exactly. These numbers really dont mean anything. For example, are the expenses associated with a school's band (seats, transportation, etc) applied to the individual sport or the music department? Schools make that decision. For football, a band is even more expensive and some schools are actually not permitting them to attend a Bowl game due to the high transportation and lodging costs (the ncaa's subsidy is pitiful). Needless to say, this dilemma gives the Music Chair grey hairs because administrators see that his department is hemorrhaging money and expect reform. 

[Dawson Rental]

To compare MU to some others you would really need to know how much they pay for rent at the BC. Most of the other programs who make big profits have a facility that they own.

A number of schools on the list have expenses that exactly equal revenues which brings the accuracy of the article into question.

Being an accountant, I found that interesting.  My first thought was that they could bonus the coach for any revenue above expenses.  That would provide a nice incentive, and might interest a coach who otherwise would find the salary wanting.
Of course, if the school was operating its basketball program as a nonprofit, they (would have to do) (could choose to do) something at the end of the year to balance the fund account, either by adding contingency money to cover a deficit, or prepaying expenses for next year to eliminate a profit.  I'm not a nonprofit guy, so I don't know if balancing out at the end of the year is a necessity or not.

[mu_hilltopper]

I've locked this.

There's been about a half dozen other threads have been started on the exact same subject.

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=19070.0
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=17254.0

The conclusion is: The story isn't worth the paper it's printed on.   The figures are just completely bogus, and any comparison or ranking is just wholly incorrect since they are totally not apples to apples.

If you want to discuss further, please do so in the threads that are already open on this same subject.