Tuesday, March 01, 2011

Why BC's expenses are a little deceiving

Forbes has an interesting breakdown of ACC Sports revenue and expenses. BC was in the middle of the conference in terms of football revenue but had high expenses. The first assumption is that travel is the big driver. Given BC's location, it is a factor. But an equally big driver for the private schools is tuition cost. Just look at Duke and Wake Forest. Their travel expenses are near their neighbors on Tobacco Road yet both have less expensive football staffs. But like BC they have to account for the more expensive tuition. The nice thing about scholarship tuition, is that it is not a true cash outflow (like chartering a plane). BC has to account for it, but it is really just an internal allocation.

The good news in all of this is that the ACC's revenue numbers will more than double with the new TV deal. I also wonder (and doubt) that BC's Under Armour deal was factored into the last revenue number.

But regardless of where the money is coming from or how expensive it is to travel, this report is just further confirmation that BC clearly made the right choice when we left the Big East.


Scott said...

I think Gene said travel was only $300-$400K more than before, but I'd have to assume our travel expenses would have gone up by an equal amount traveling even further to play the scattered Big East.

Tuition is a huge factor in these costs reported figures, though I assume a significant portion of BC's scholarships expenses derive from endowments (so not out-of-pocket).

For Bill, I get your "internal" allocation argument, meaning this is just funny money, since every school has the same opportunity costs of 85 players. However, I believe State schools receive a subsidy for all enrolled students (at least the instate ones). Wouldn't surprise me if the Carolinas get 50% back.

The real costs this article misses is that BC and Miami are real cities, with higher costs of utilities, taxes, permits, wages, cost-of-living, construction, etc.

Louis Hinnant said...

BC up by 20 with 7 mins to go!

Let's go BC!!

Erik said...

John Cahill does it all for us. Amazing. Does he want an MBA? A Masters in Theology? Whatever, BuddyN you got it.

BCDoubleEagle said...

Nice win tonight.

Walter said...


I can't believe the team showed up with such force tonight! getting hot at the right time? I hope so.

Deacon Drake said...

If the percentages play out, the ACC will finish with 4 9-7 teams.

Here are those teams' records against one another.

BC 4-1
VT 2-2 (at CU)
CU 1-1 (vs VT)
MD 1-4

As you can see, the VT game was the lynch pin to getting into the driver's seat. Not 100% sure how the tiebreakers will pan out, but a double dose of Wake "should" pad the win total and put BC on a nice run heading into the post-season.

VT at Clemson now becomes a pre-ACC NCAA play-in game... loser really has to win 2 games to get in... assuming Clemson loses at Duke tomorrow.

cwm2005 said...

Best game of the season for BC.

But, if this team has taught us anything, it's don't take Wake for granted.

Exhibit A: Yale

chicagofire1871 said...

Scott, I get what you're saying about Boston and Miami just being more expensive than little towns in the Carolina's, but what about Atlanta and DC? Boston is more expensive than all of them, but is Miami more expensive than Atl? DC? Certainly Maryland shouldn't be on the bottom if it's a country vs. city argument.