Now because of other league members' revenue streams and larger fanbases, BC is probably still one of the lower revenue teams in the conference. Because of the mix of private schools and BC's conservative nature of reporting, we will probably never get a true picture of where BC stands among its peers.
What frustrates me about this number is that even with the healthy and growing revenues, BC remains so conservative. How has the indoor practice facility taken so long, when some of this revenue could have off set up-front costs? Also, why do we still nickle and dime so many coaches and balk at paying players? I don't want to spend money to just to spend, but it is clear that BC could do more.
Posts
22 comments:
No excuses - plain and simple mismanagement - we should be doing better. You'd think after the most recent embarrassment in the two leading revenue sports, change would finally come about. But not a word from the dumb and proud of it up in Chestnut Hill.
$26m in revenue is a thimble of spit for BC.
Coaches salaries in ACC sports are high. Costs of scholarships for all the athletes and the costs of security, publicity, AD office, facilities maintenance probably leaves precious little in profit.
This tiny profit - if there even is one - is no more than a rounding error on the annual growth of BC's endowment.
It is highly unlikely that the BC athletic programs make money. It is much more likely that they lose money -- probably many millions -- each year. Paying for these losses comes from the university's general funds meaning that each student/parent pays for these losses in tuition costs. Check out the link to a Washington Post story about college athletics from November, 2015. You'll notice that all ACC programs for which data are available lost money in 2014, the most recent year for which data were available. Here's the link to the Post story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/sports/wp/2015/11/23/running-up-the-bills/
If ND will pay Brian Kelly a base salary of 900K, how can BC be prepared to pay Addazio a base of 2.6 million?
According to http://www.coacheshotseat.com/SalariesContracts.htm
Kelly's total compensation is $4 million. How much of that is base salary versus incentives, radio and TV shows and so forth isn't clear. Per ND's 990 form, Kelly got $1.6 million from the school in their 2014 fiscal year. That doesn't include radio and TV. The $950k number appears to be from 2012.
Finally, according to USA Today, Addazio's 2015 salary was 41st in the country (Brian Kelly was 68th). 6 ACC schools paid higher salaries.
Now that the baseball team made the tournament, can we finally put to rest the ridiculous idea of dropping the baseball program to fund men's lacrosse?
BB. - No. Lax rules baseball drools
i would be in favor of cutting all men's sports other than Football, Hockey, Basketball, and perhaps Baseball. then make the appropriate corresponding cuts in the women's sports so the funds equal out to comply with Title IX. i don't see the value provided by the non-revenue generating sports - they can evolve into club sports or fall by the wayside, but to lose money every year so that we can have a ski team or a golf team or fencing team seems illogical to me.
Miz, I wonder how many sports the ACC would be willing to let us cut. The ACC site lists 13 men's varsity sports and 14 for women. BC doesn't play all of them at the varsity level, skipping wrestling and lacrosse. Does anyone know if there's a minimum number?
This DOE site has the best 20k foot data available for program revenues and expenses (by no means perfect)as the actual Athletics Dept. budget is not available. Go to the site, look up BC and go to the View Data tab for BC. http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/
Sorry - after you press View Data - scroll down a bit and press revenues and expenses.
Nappy
Valuable info. So we make a 2.5mm profit, but that doesn't tell the entire story. What amount of donations would be lost w/o athletics. Would there be the same interest in the school w/o athletics. How many kids wouldn't even pick up BC on their radar w/o all the exposure that sports provide? The N.Y. Times did an analysis of what Bama gets for the 7mm they pay Saban, and reached the conclusion that they received 500mm in return. BCs problem is not the $, it's the people who spend them, they don't know what they are doing! W/ Leahy being the biggest culprit.
Hoib - could not agree with you more. But its interesting data that might be of interest to others here. I still go back to your point - we think small and will continue to get small with the current people running the show. Without change at the top - I'd rather see the school plow everything into academics (like an Emory or a Johns Hopkins)and at least raise their rankings and stature (and the value of our degrees). They can keep hockey at D1 and move everything else down. If for whatever stupid reason they will never develop or obtain the institutional wherewithal to be consistently competitive at the ACC level - then they should do something else that they know how to do well. No amount of ACC money is worth demoralizing the students and alums by routinely under performing on a very public ACC stage. Its beyond our control if the Jesuits don't or won't "get it".
Napoleon. - great link. Lots of data! Lots of revenue and expense info for sports.
We need some excel fiend to crunch these numbers.
My impression is that BC male sports revenue and profit are at or near the bottom of the ACC. (Most school not making much if any money from women's sports) BC numbers are a joke compared to SEC and Big10 teams - not a surprise - but differences are huge. Syracuse, to give a kinda surpring example, blows BC's doors off money wise. As does ND, FSU, Clemdon louisville, VT. Duke.
Also BC has some 230 track athletes (male n female) and 66 women rowers?? Lots of swimmer n divers too. Why??
BC needs some of those great CSom
Management professors and fantastic BC biz grads to knock some financial and business sense into the athletic programs.
BC sports is badly managed in almost every possible way - except graduation rates (well not hoops) Bad talent selection and management. Bad recruiting. Bad marketing. Bad facilities investments. Bad revenue and expense management. Etc.
As an expensive private school in the most expensive area of the ACC , and the least pro-college sports area, it might be that BC as an institution really is not capable of financially competing at the current level it seeks.
Mod - if you believe the changing demographic picture for the future with people having fewer and fewer kids - there is going to be a major wake up call for large numbers of colleges down the road. The academically elite schools will continue to prosper - the others will struggle or close down. BC needs to focus on raising its academic stature more than anything else so that it is a top 20 school and among the academically elite. You get in the real world and its far more important that you have a degree from an Emory, Chicago or a Cornell, etc, than from an FSU, Clemson, Louisville or a Kentucky. While some institutions like a Notre Dame or Stanford, to their credit, have been able to get there in a big time sports environment, the likelihood that BC will ever do so is small. The reasons for that are numerous and certainly the managerial talent that perpetuates itself at BC is part of that. If for whatever reason BC is more likely to much better focus on its academic stature without the managerial and financial distractions of major college athletics, then I'd rather see that as, in the long run, its academic ranking is what will enable it to survive and prosper more than anything else. I'd much rather see the school rise to a top 20 ranking academically than athletically. I'll get my sports fix somewhere else.
I'm a sports guy, and I think we need to have sports guys at the top of the decision making process. If we do that and still can't compete then I'll look at it differently. If we had an enthusiastic person at the top who really gave a dam, and not someone who looks on it all as something distasteful, I think things would be different.
Join for AD! Ha!
Bates luvs sports but can't apparently handle the management challenges.
We need a AD who luvs sports and excels at management - with emphasis on the later.
Hoib for AD! (Darn auto correct)
The problem is the guy who hired Bates, he's clearly not a sports guy.
agree with Mod here. just looking at that link its clear as day what needs to be cut.
Mens/Womens Golf costs $12K per student. we are competing in the ACC against teams that can play golf year around. cutting the two saves $215K. why do we still have a golf team???
Women's Lax and Rowing cost a combined $410K. do these sports generate any revenue at all? why not just go to club?
sailing costs the school another $400+ annually. i believe the sailing team has had some success but that is $4M per decade that could be re-allocated, and not just on sports. as others have said, re-invest that in the education side and help us compete and rise the rankings. i'd much rather be a top 20 school than have a good sailing team.
skiing $175 total. swimming and diving $225 total. fencing is a drop in the bucket at 50K but what is the point?
mens/womens hockey makes sense. mens/womens basketball, football make sense. these sports generate revenue, are a source of entertainment and camaraderie for students and alumni. happy to keep baseball/softball and mens/womens soccer as well given the recent success and the assumption that (A) they generate some money and (B) we have to have some minimum amount of teams in the ACC.
track, fencing, field hockey, golf, women's lax, rowing, sailing, skiing, swimming & diving, tennis, volleyball should all be cut.
back of the envelope math here is over $2.5 million PER YEAR is spent on the above - programs that, outside of those on the teams, nobody at BC cares about. that is over $25 million a decade being flushed down the toilet.
maybe i am missing it - what value do these sports provide relative to their 6 figure price tags? i just don't get it.
The short answer is that sports bring in diversity of students (not just in the race sense of diversity). Having a variety of sports available makes the school more attractive to a broader group of students.
Colleges are (or at least should be) aimed at developing well-rounded individuals. This is part of that. Having the conversation about dropping non-revenue sports, is akin to dropping less popular majors. Eventually, you can make the argument to remove everything but the very most popular, and you end up with a homogenous student body that doesn't attract anyone.
I am also forced to wonder that if BC only offered men's and women's BBall, soccer, and hockey, as well as football, how many people would be complaining about the clown shoes administration that is limiting our sports footprint and how amateurish we appear to only be offering 9 athletic teams.
College isn't supposed to be a for-profit enterprise, and college sports aren't either. So long as the students aren't foregoing anything else (and I'd be hard-pressed to suggest BC students are), why make cuts to sports? The press alone of a school cutting out a dozen athletic teams and revoking the scholarships of hundreds of athletes would be crippling to BC, far more than $2.5 million a year.
I do believe there are many good reasons for keeping women's volleyball. All that jumping - so many happy thoughts and so healthy.
Post a Comment