Could someone explain this??

[OhiohockeyDad]

I found this on the men's forum - its basically a list of all the colleges/universities and their athletic dept. financials.

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/search.asp

I keep hearing that certain schools don't have the money for women's hockey- yet Michigan made 9 million dollars off their athletics last year- am I reading this wrong?? I didn't find many in the red- even Quinnipiac made almost 500,000.

[PrincetonFan]

Sounds about right. Michigan must take oodles of dough from the football program--seven dates a year of over 100,000 fans, plus bowl money, plus merchandise. I think Michigan's resistance to women's hockey is an AD who doesn't believe girls should play ice hockey.

[dave1381]

I keep hearing that certain schools don't have the money for women's hockey- yet Michigan made 9 million dollars off their athletics last year- am I reading this wrong?? I didn't find many in the red- even Quinnipiac made almost 500,000.
But a few years back when that Game of Life book came out, it cited Michigan as the example of a big school that lost money. So things change quickly. I'm sure programs are making more money since we've been out of recession for three years.

[hockeyyfan]

But a few years back when that Game of Life book came out, it cited Michigan as the example of a big school that lost money. So things change quickly. I'm sure programs are making more money since we've been out of recession for three years.

129 members of the women's crew team???? Does that seem odd?

[unofan]

Student aid, aka scholarships, are seperate, I believe. Add those in, and Michigan loses a little over a million dollars.

[kalehr]

129 members of the women's crew team???? Does that seem odd?
No, not really. If it is anything like Minnesota's crew team, you have a ton of people who go out for the team but don't have the skills to actually row with the varsity. They are technically on the team in that they are practicing and getting in shape and learning the skills they need to row and stuff, but all 129 of them aren't actually competing.

[OhiohockeyDad]

Student aid, aka scholarships, are seperate, I believe. Add those in, and Michigan loses a little over a million dollars.


OK...I look at the first page- it says 'operating expenses' are 1.88 mill (coaches salaries?)- I go to revenue/expenses and it says football cost $10.6 mill. Now, I'm not a rocket scientist, but 12.5 mill and that doesn't include scholarships? (Which is fake money anyway :rolleyes: -another whole subject). They show 118 football players , so about 38 of them are paying.......I'm just sick off hearing, they don't have the money :eek:


Oh,, the rowing thing is an obvious Title IX dodge- put 180 girls on the crew team, you're compliant ;) Don't get me wrong, I love BT football and basketball, but stop with the we're losing money garbage.

[hockeyyfan]

No, not really. If it is anything like Minnesota's crew team, you have a ton of people who go out for the team but don't have the skills to actually row with the varsity. They are technically on the team in that they are practicing and getting in shape and learning the skills they need to row and stuff, but all 129 of them aren't actually competing.

Their '03-04 roster listed 31....add another 25 for the 'novice' team and it sure sounds like a lot less than 129.....the smoking gun of title IX???????
I just wish they would play women's hockey...I don;t think it would detract from rowing.

[Ironman33]

The way the books are done, scholarships are added to the expenses, therefore many schools lose money. Scholarships aren;t really "funny money" at most of the large schools that have athletic departments that are seperate from the university and have to write a check to the university to pay for the scholarships, and the booster club/fund(athletic donations) makes up the difference in the budget deficits. I am a huge women's hockey supporter, but don't be fooled. they figure out how to spend the $$ on football, to make more for football. I would say the books are not "cooked" in athletic departments, there is too much at stake.

But I agree that participation numbers are cooked, as they are harder to pin down, there is double rostering with track/ X-C, and other funny things like adding women to track that have no chance of ever getting into a meet, but they get the benefits of being an athlete (nice warm-ups, training table,etc)

[hockeyyfan]

But I agree that participation numbers are cooked, as they are harder to pin down, there is double rostering with track/ X-C, and other funny things like adding women to track that have no chance of ever getting into a meet, but they get the benefits of being an athlete (nice warm-ups, training table,etc)

Ohiohockeydad may be on to something...check some other Big 10 schools and there are a LOT of rowers listed.....funny I don't remember them.....think about it....UM has more rowers than on the football team? Galleon racing??? Not wanting to deny any athlete the chance to participate, but if they capped it at even 80 theres the room for a hockey team.