View Full Version : NCAA Hockey Financials

Sean Pickett
06-11-2017, 05:49 PM
NCAA Hockey Financials (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Gmihpb5HmlREhM4rkC8HNrKyrNrPYFQNL31bf74DGDA/edit?usp=sharing)

When North Dakota announced it was dropping women’s ice hockey a lot of numbers were mentioned as to how much money the program was losing as a reason to justify it being cut. This made me interested in not only how much their women’s program cost, but how much every DI men’s and women’s ice hockey program was costing each school that sponsored either one. I started by looking at a few NCAA financial reports I found online, but I quickly realized that you need more than one year’s report to get a good overall picture of the revenues and expenses for each school.

Besides the few reports I first found online I then came across The Chronicle of Higher Education’s report on athletic spending, The $10-Billion Sports Tab (http://www.chronicle.com/interactives/ncaa-subsidies-main#id=table_2014). This article also had a link to most full DI public schools 2010-14 NCAA financial reports. However, as the report was published in 2015 it is missing the last 2 years of available reports and also doesn’t have any reports for DII/DIII schools that play up in hockey. Therefore, I ended up submitting FOIA/public records requests to all 30 public schools and both service academies that have sponsored DI men’s or women’s hockey between 2010-16 requesting their NCAA financial reports for those years I wasn’t able to find online. To date I have received the reports from 30 of the schools. Only Alabama-Huntsville denied my request, as I am not a citizen of the state, and the USMA is still processing my request.

That still left the 31 private schools, which don’t have to release their NCAA reports and for which I didn’t bother to submit requests. Instead I used the much more limited EADA report information that they are required to release to get at least a general overview of their game-day and total expenses (although the EADA reports have different accounting requirements than the NCAA reports so that sometimes the reported expenses in the EADA are different than the reported expenses in the NCAA reports. See “Chapter 5: Reports Submitted by Athletics Departments” of Financial Reporting in Division I College Athletics, a thesis by Anish Sharma (http://thesis.honors.olemiss.edu/112/1/Thesis%20%281%29.pdf)). After adding the EADA information I thought I might try to estimate the athletic aid awarded by each private school by multiplying their annual tuition, room & board costs by the likely number of equivalencies each awarded. I was able to compare (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10IKprZWooQyxFSdi0Z43UAOS5pNxRJ3b0D8g3SINxeU/edit?usp=sharing) my estimates with the reported athletic aid awarded by the 4 DIII schools (Clarkson, Colorado College, Rensselaer and St. Lawrence) that play-up and were grandfathered in to continue to allow said aid. The estimated amounts varied between 8.6% higher to 9.5% lower, with 16 of the 49 compared being within 1%, 24 within 2.5%, and 40 within 5% of the EADA amount. Based on these comparisons I am confident that the estimated amounts each school likely spent on athletic aid are for the most part within 5% of the actual amounts spent. Also note that the EADA amounts were used for the 4 schools, with athletic equivalencies adjusted accordingly.

I compiled the hockey financials for both men’s and women’s teams, as well the overall athletic financials for each school for each year in a workbook (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Gmihpb5HmlREhM4rkC8HNrKyrNrPYFQNL31bf74DGDA/edit?usp=sharing). I also added sheets with each category’s percentage of the hockey revenue and expenses, hockey revenue and expenses as a percentage of the overall athletic revenues and expenses and women’s hockey revenue and expenses as a percentage of men’s hockey revenues and expenses. The workbook contains 13 sheets: Overview; Reporting Categories; Averaged Hockey; Yearly Hockey; Averaged Hockey %; Yearly Hockey %; Averaged Overall; Yearly Overall; Averaged Hockey % of Overall; Yearly Hockey % of Overall; Averaged Hockey Women % Men; Yearly Hockey Women % Men; and Notes.

The Overview
This sheet contains information also found in this post about the workbook and each sheet.

Reporting Categories
This sheet contains details for all NCAA revenue and expense reporting categories used from 2010-16 as well as additional information that is not in the NCAA reports which has been added using information from the reports or added to be used with information in the reports.

Averaged Hockey
This sheet contains the averaged hockey revenue and expenses for each school for the number of years' worth of information compiled on the Yearly Hockey sheet. Some averages are based on all years, others are averaged for only those years that the NCAA used the categories and some are averaged for only those years the school reported revenue or expenses. This was done to try to most accurately reflect the average amount for each category. Because of this the sum of the individual categories will not always equal the total revenue and total expense categories.

Yearly Hockey
This sheet contains the yearly hockey revenue and expenses reported for each school for each year from NCAA financial reports or EADAs.

Averaged Hockey %
This sheet contains revenue and expenses for each category on the Averaged Hockey sheet as a percentage of total hockey revenue and expenses. Because of how the categories have been averaged the sum of the categories will not always equal 100%.

Yearly Hockey %
This sheet contains the revenue and expenses for each category on the Yearly Hockey sheet as a percentage of total hockey revenue and expenses for each reported year.

Averaged Overall
This sheet contains the averaged overall revenue and expenses for each school for the number of years' worth of information compiled on the Yearly Overall sheet. Some averages are based on all years reported, others are averaged for only those years that the NCAA used the categories and some are averaged for only those years the school reported revenue or expenses. This was done to try to most accurately reflect the average amount for each category. Because of this the sum of the individual categories will not always equal the total revenue and total expense categories.

Yearly Overall
This sheet contains the yearly overall revenue and expenses for each school for each year's information available from NCAA financial reports or EADAs.

Averaged Hockey % of Overall
This sheet contains the averaged hockey revenue and expenses for each category as a percentage of total averaged sports revenue and expenses for each category.

Yearly Hockey % of Overall
This sheet contains the yearly hockey revenue and expenses for each category as a percentage of total yearly sports revenue and expenses for each category.

Averaged Hockey Women % Men
This sheet contains the averaged women's hockey revenue and expenses for each category as a percentage of men's hockey revenue and expenses for each category. Only schools that sponsored both sports between 2009-16 are included.

Yearly Hockey Women % Men
This sheet contains the yearly women's hockey revenue and expenses for each category as a percentage of men's hockey revenue and expenses for each category. Only schools that sponsored both sports between 2009-16 are included.

This sheet contains important notes.

Not every school reports numbers in every category, as either there is no athletic revenue or expenses in that category for hockey (or all of athletics) or the school did not break down the expenses for that category among specific teams. Sometimes a school breaks down the numbers for one year, but not another, so it’s actually hard to compare a team’s revenue and expenses from year to year without comparing overall athletic expenses as well. St. Cloud State is an excellent example of this as they didn’t break down student fees and direct institutional support for 2012, but did so for 2010-11 and 2013-16.

With all the differences in reporting it is even harder to compare schools in many of the categories, but at least for some important ones it does appear to be pretty clear: ticket revenue, athletic aid, coaches’ compensation, recruiting, travel, uniforms and equipment, and game-day expenses. That said, Western Michigan reported a total of $604 for men’s game-day expenses in 2010 and $0 for 2011-16, so even those categories are not free from different reporting methods.


Sean Pickett
06-11-2017, 05:52 PM
NCAA Hockey Financials (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Gmihpb5HmlREhM4rkC8HNrKyrNrPYFQNL31bf74DGDA/edit?usp=sharing)

It has now been 4 seasons since the B1G was formed and the ensuing realignment of the western conferences. As all but 2 of the schools in the B1G, NCHC and WCHA are public looking at the NCAA financial reports for each for 2010-16 gives a good overview of how the realignment impacted their travel expenses (Alabama-Huntsville declined my FOIA request, however, they weren’t in the CCHA or WCHA pre-realignment). I have created a workbook with each team’s travel expenses, guarantees paid by Alaska and Alaska-Anchorage and received by the other league schools, and payouts received from the NCAA/leagues for 2010-16. Of the 23 teams previously in the CCHA or WCHA I have reports for 20 of them; Notre Dame, Denver and Colorado College are private and not required to supply the reports.

Travel Expenses for Western Teams after Realignment

In looking at their 4 year average travel expenses for 2010-13 (3 year average for Nebraska-Omaha in the WCHA) and 3 year average travel expenses for 2014-16 18 of the 20 teams have had increased expenses. Only Alaska, which has seen an average savings of $102 thousand per season and Bemidji, with a $16 thousand per season savings, have seen reduced travel expenses. On the other side North Dakota has seen the largest increase in travel expenses, an average of $433 thousand per season. Following behind UND are three B1G schools: Minnesota (an average increase of $357,527/season), Michigan State (an average increase of $338,632/season) and Michigan (an average increase of $271,554/season) and another NCHC school, Nebraska-Omaha (an average increase of $274,749/season). Ferris State has seen the largest increase among the WCHA schools at just over $122 thousand/season, followed by Northern Michigan at just under $103 thousand/season.

Percentage wise, Minnesota was hit with the largest increase, a 202.4% average increase, followed by Ferris State (176.8%), Nebraska-Omaha (158.6%), Michigan State (156.9%) and North Dakota (128.6%). On the other end, Alaska saw a decrease in 22.4% and Bemidji saw a decrease of 11.1%, Wisconsin had a small 2.2% increase and Alaska-Anchorage had a 15.0% increase. The rest had increases between Michigan Tech’s 25.3% and Michigan’s 86.2%.

Overall, North Dakota has had the highest average travel costs since realignment at $769,615, followed by Michigan ($586,427), Wisconsin ($583,028), Michigan State ($554,411), Minnesota ($534,213), Nebraska-Omaha ($448,014), Western Michigan ($371,821), Alaska ($354,747) and Alaska-Anchorage ($363,670). Four WCHA schools had had the smallest average travel costs: Bemidji State ($131,590), Bowling Green ($176,811), Ferris State ($191,062) and Lake Superior ($193,470).

UNO is an interesting case, as their last year in the CCHA they spent $242,938 on travel before reducing it to an average of $173,265/season for their three seasons in the old WCHA before seeing it skyrocket to an average of $448,014/season in 3 seasons in the NCHC.

Among the new conferences the NCHC saw the largest average percentage increase at 87.0%, followed by the B1G at 75.2%, and the WCHA a more manageable 24.1% average increase (although this is in a large part to the 22.4% decrease in average travel expenses for Alaska. Without Alaska the average percentage increase would be 43.4%). Dollar wise the B1G saw the largest increase, an average of $218,834/season, followed by the NCHC with an average increase of $190,234, and the WCHA with an average increase of $45,349 ($66,035 excluding Alaska).

Alaska Guarantees

I recall reading posts in the past that discussed the travel guarantees both Alaska schools are required to pay out to other conference schools that make the trip(s) to Alaska. The NCAA Financial reports have a category for both guarantees received and paid out, so I took added a sheet to the workbook with both the Alaska and Alaska-Anchorage guarantees paid out and the guarantees received by the other conference members from 2010-16.

For the 2009-10 season the total known guarantees received by CCHA teams were more than the total guarantees paid by Alaska, but at least two of the teams most likely received only part of their guarantee revenue from the school. The total known guarantees received by the WCHA teams were less than the total guarantees paid by Alaska-Anchorage and there is enough of a difference between the amounts to cover guarantees to Denver and Colorado College. Furthermore, two schools, Northern Michigan (CCHA) and North Dakota (WCHA) reported receiving no guarantees for the season, despite both traveling to Alaska. It also appears that the guarantees from the Alaska schools were not the same for every school as the range of guarantees received is $0 to $190,000 (which is highly unlikely all to all be from Alaska).

For the 2010-11 season the total amount received from CCHA teams is known, but with Michigan and Michigan State both reporting over $200 thousand in received guarantees what they received from Alaska can only be a percentage of their totals. For the WCHA teams both private schools, Denver and Colorado College, went to Alaska-Anchorage again and once again there is enough money between what UAA paid and the other WCHA teams received to pay them guarantees. However, for both leagues several teams (Bowling Green, Ferris State and Ohio State (CCHA) and Michigan Tech and Nebraska-Omaha (WCHA)) reported receiving no guarantees despite traveling to Alaska, while the other schools report different amount of received guarantees.

For the 2011-12 season 2 of 6 CCHA teams reported no guarantees while 5 of 6 WCHA teams traveling for league play reported no guarantees as did St. Cloud, which played in the Kendall Hockey Classic. This is quite strange regarding the WCHA teams, as Alaska-Anchorage reported paying over $100 thousand in guarantees for the season and in looking at their schedule for 2011-12 the only non-WCHA teams to travel to Anchorage were Clarkson, for the Kendall Hockey Classic (along with St Cloud State), Alaska and Northern Alberta for an exhibition. Most of the unreported amount must have gone to WCHA teams, but they did not report it as guarantee revenue. It is possible that they deducted the money from their travel expenses, as that is what the money has been reportedly for. If so, the schools not reporting it as received guarantees would have been underreporting total revenue and expenses for the season. It would also be an excellent example of schools reporting revenue and expenses differently.

For the 2012-13 season it is a reversal, as 5 of 7 CCHA teams traveling to Alaska reported receiving no guarantees, while all 6 WCHA teams traveling to Alaska-Anchorage for league games reported receiving guarantees, as did North Dakota, who played in the Brice Alaska Gold Rush. Alaska report over $429 thousand in guarantees paid out, with only Merrimack, North Dakota, Alaska-Anchorage and Regina (exhibition) being non-CCHA teams. So most of the guarantees paid out likely went to CCHA teams and it appears that the teams deduced it from their travel expenses.

The situation remained the same for 2013-14, the first after realignment. Four WCHA teams reported receiving no revenue, while 3 did. The paid out guarantees once again would likely got to league teams, which did not report it as guarantee revenue.

However, in 2014-15 every WCHA team I have reports for that traveled to Alaska reported guarantee revenue. With 4 teams traveling to both Alaska schools I split their total guarantees and applied half to each Alaska school, although some of the guarantee revenue likely came from Alabama-Huntsville. Doing so left Alaska with extra, some which might have gone to Alabama-Huntsville. However, Alaska-Anchorage’s total was less than the amount I entered for the other WCHA schools receiving, so they likely paid a lower guarantee amount. It also appears that schools were likely paid different amounts as well, but that is harder to determine.

In 2015-16 once again every WCHA team I have reports for that traveled to Alaska reported guarantee revenues. I again split the guaranteed revenue between the two Alaska schools for the 4 teams that travelled to both, and again, some of the guarantee revenue likely came from Alabama-Huntsville. And again Alaska-Anchorage’s total was less than the amount I entered for the other WCHA schools receiving, indicating once again they are paying a lower amount.

Unfortunately, I don’t have the NCAA reports for Alabama-Huntsville, so I can’t try to determine how much each school that traveled to them may have received as well.


Sean Pickett
06-11-2017, 05:53 PM
Conference Payouts

I also recall reading about the WCHA conference payouts. Unfortunately, the NCAA had schools report combined NCAA/conference revenue until 2015, so knowing exactly how much the WCHA used to pay conference members is hard to accurately determine. However, after entering all the information onto a sheet in the workbook what I see is that every WCHA team (excluding Denver and Colorado College), with the exception of Bemidji State, received a NCAA/WCHA payout at least once between 2010 and 2013. The average annual payout per school was just over $98 thousand, but varied from school to school. Alaska-Anchorage received 2 low 5 figure payouts and 2 low six figure payouts; Bemidji, as mentioned, received no payouts; Michigan Tech between $170 and $216 thousand per year; Minnesota between, zero and $282 thousand; Minnesota State between $97 and $122 thousand; Minnesota-Duluth between $80 and $122 thousand; Nebraska-Omaha a one-time payout of $224 thousand (seemingly for joining); North Dakota between $26 and $106 thousand; St. Cloud State between $37 and $97 thousand, and Wisconsin between $32 and $277 thousand. Again, some of the payouts are likely partially from the NCAA, but still, for most of the schools a decent annual payout from the WCHA.

The CCHA, on the other hand, had much more modest payouts, averaging just $22.5 thousand per school per year, with Ohio State never receiving a payout, Western Michigan just one, Bowling Green just two and others three. Alaska actually did the best, averaging over $95 thousand a year, thanks in part to just under $226 thousand it received in 2010 (and which covered most of its guarantees for that year).

Since realignment the conference payouts have dried up, except to North Dakota, which has seen a huge increase, going from an average $79 thousand NCAA/WCHA payout to an average $270 thousand NCAA/NCHC payout. In 2013-14 the combined NCAA/NCHC payout was $331,327, while the NCHC payout was $331,515 in 2014-15 and $144,285 in 2015-16. The only other public NCHC schools to report any payouts were Miami ($29,011 in 2013-14), Nebraska-Omaha ($665 also in 2013-14), both combined NCAA/NCHC payouts, and St. Cloud State ($14,257 in 2015-16).

The WCHA has attempted to continue some payouts, but other than the reported combined NCAA/WCHA payouts for 4 schools in 2013-14 the only large payout was $100,000 to Michigan Tech in 2014-15, when only one other school reported any payout. And in 2015-16 only 4 schools reported small payouts, all under $10 thousand.

Taken overall it appears that the only schools that realignment was a financial benefit to are Alaska and Bemidji State. Alaska saw their travel and total guarantee expenses reduced by an average of just under $182 thousand per year, but that was partially outset by the loss of an average CCHA payout of $95.5 thousand per year, leaving them with an average savings of about $86.5 thousand per year. Bemidji, having never reported receiving any payouts from the WCHA has not felt the loss of the payouts and has had an average savings of just over $16 thousand per year from travel expenses. They rest of the schools have seen increased travel expenses and loss of conference payouts leading to having to find money to cover the difference. The amounts range from Bowling Green’s $70,757 to Minnesota’s $459,171. Looked at this way the realignment has impacted the WCHA much harder, even though they still have the smallest average budget gaps, as they also generally have the smallest total budgets. After Bowling Green, Lake Superior has had an average gap of $93,213; Ferris State an average gap of $109,174; Alaska-Anchorage one of $136,810 (including increased average guarantees paid); Northern Michigan an average gap of $150,140; Minnesota State one of $173,508; and Michigan Tech an average one of $199,548.


Sean Pickett
06-11-2017, 06:11 PM
NCAA Hockey Financials (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Gmihpb5HmlREhM4rkC8HNrKyrNrPYFQNL31bf74DGDA/edit?usp=sharing)

One of the first things many fans want to know is how much their head coach makes. The NCAA financial reports don’t give salaries, but total compensation, including amounts paid by third parties that are in coaches’ contracts. Of the 28 schools that I have the information for the average for head coaches total compensation ranges from Minnesota’s $551,077 to Lake Superior’s $162,602, with the median $328,356 and the average slightly less at $327,977.

Three schools, Minnesota, Miami and Michigan, averaged over $500 thousand and four schools, North Dakota, New Hampshire, Michigan State and Western Michigan, averaged between $400 and $500 thousand. Ten schools averaged in the $300 thousands, 7 schools in the $200 thousands and just 3 schools, Connecticut, Ferris State and Lake Superior, averaged below $200 thousand. Connecticut is a special case, as their average was just $116,221 for Coach Marshall when UConn was in Atlantic Hockey, but it was $288,903 for the first 3 years for Coach Cavanaugh during their last year in that league and subsequent move to Hockey East.

League wise, the B1G had 4 of the top 8 averages and the highest league average (5 of 6 schools) at $440,374. The NCHC had the second highest average (6 of 8) at $399,734 with Hockey East third (6 of 11) at $332,847 (staring with Coach Cavanaugh). The WCHA had 8 of the lowest 10 averages and the lowest league average at $228,320 (excluding Alabama-Huntsville). All the ECAC schools are private, as are 9 of the 11 Atlantic Hockey schools (Air Force’s average is $329,448, but I’m sure the AHA league average is lower).

For 2016 Minnesota is tops at $837,644, with Western Michigan second at $681,838, while Ferris State is last at $188,618 (the only school below $200 thousand). The B1G still has 4 of the top 8 spots, although in a different order and the highest average (5 of 6) at $546,876. The NCHC maintained the second highest average (6 of 8) at $475,434 and Hockey East the third highest (6 of 11) at $373,608. The WCHA remained at the bottom with 7 of the bottom 9, again in a different order, and the lowest average at $290,198.

I have also compared all Hockey coaches’ averaged compensation vs the overall averaged compensation of all head coaches. Overall, hockey coaches’ compensation is a quite small percentage of overall coaches’ compensation for most full DI schools, but a more significant portion of most of the DII/DIII schools. For DI schools the percentages range from Connecticut's 2.1% (and rising) to Nebraska-Omaha's 30.3%. Of the DII/DIII schools Minnesota State is the lowest at 17.5% and Michigan Tech is the highest at 37.5%. This just one indicator that hockey is considered the number one sport for the schools that play up, but only the number one sport of a few full DI schools.

While total compensation is useful, it includes more, sometimes much more, than a coach’s base salary. In doing online research into coaches’ compensation I came across an article (http://www.bgsuhockey.com/2015/07/wcha-coachs-contracts-for-2015-2016-season/) on BGSUHockey.com (http://bgsuhockey.com) about WCHA coaches contracts for all then head coaches. Starting with this I compared the base salaries and known earned bonuses (for which I was able assign amounts) to the total compensation each coach received for the years of the contract. In looking for additional information I came across another article (http://www.sctimes.com/story/sports/college/2014/06/28/mnscu-coaching-salaries-vary-across-board/11638695/) on sctimes.com with base salary information for both WCHA and NCHC coaches.

I entered this information in another spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sNBnc27TPh5Pp-7OfbMxp9W6fmBCUAAzh6tT1yrvdk8/edit?usp=sharing) and then calculated the percentage of the salary, known bonuses and benefits, and combined salary and bonuses/benefits as a percentage of the total compensation for each coach for each year. The percentage of base salary ranged from 29.3% to 83.5% of the total compensation each coach received. On the high end of salary as a percentage of total compensation are Coaches Motzko (2016) and Hastings (2016) both at 83.5% and Coach Serratore (2014) at 80.1%. On the low end of salary as a percentage of total compensation is Coach Murray (2016) at 29.3%, although it seems likely that he received a raise in his base salary which is not reflected in the numbers I have. Coach Murray also has the next four lowest percentages (44-45%). When known bonuses/benefits amounts are added the percentage of otal compensation rises to 44.0-84.2% of total compensation.

This information is incomplete and I am sure that a number of the coaches received additional bonuses/benefits that I have not been able to determine. However, it clearly shows that a coach’s base salary is just a part of their total compensation.


Sean Pickett
06-11-2017, 06:21 PM
NCAA Hockey Financials (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Gmihpb5HmlREhM4rkC8HNrKyrNrPYFQNL31bf74DGDA/edit?usp=sharing)

I have read numerous post over the years that mention North Dakota gets to use Ralph Engelstad Arena for a mere $1 per year. However, after compiling their NCAA Financial information into a workbook to compare it to the other schools that sponsor men’s or women’s ice hockey it was obvious that is not true. I posted about this in the REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey (http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?119842-REPORT-North-Dakota-cutting-women-s-hockey) thread on the Women’s College Hockey Forum (http://board.uscho.com/forumdisplay.php?6-Women-s-College-Hockey) and SJHovey posted a link to an article by Brad Schlossman (http://undhockey.areavoices.com/?p=106642) in which he wrote “Doing it this way probably benefits UND since its agreement with Ralph Engelstad Arena is based on ticket sales. The Ralph’s take is a percentage of ticket sales.”

Brad did not state what percentage of ticket sales went to the Engelstad Family Foundation as owners of the arena, so I created a spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XCxEX5qw6z30odSA6_aKtakXMs5Q-0Ee6goPy4oKsv4/edit?usp=sharing) of the five teams that play in REA, along with women’s soccer, which The Sicatoka mentioned in a post, uses locker room space in the arena. The spreadsheet lists the annual ticket sales and facilities costs for each of the six sports for 2010-16, along with the facilities costs as a percentage of ticket sales. At the end of each sport I add the 7 year totals and after each individual sports I added all the sports together for each year.

For 2010 & 2011 the school reported the same percentage (52.1% and 52.7%) for all five sports*, but in 2012 the percentages changed slightly for basketball and dropped by almost half for women's hockey. Then in 2013 the percentages changed drastically, with basketball and volleyball paying nothing for 2013, '14 & '15, women's hockey paying 45.5% in 2013 and nothing in '14 & '15 and men's hockey paying just 0.9% in 2013, before paying 73.1% in 2014 & 61.8% in 2015.

In 2016 men's hockey paid only 38.9% of ticket sales, but women's hockey (1574.4% of ticket sales), basketball (164.2% of men's and 169.9% of women's ticket sales) and women's volleyball (348.4% of ticket sales) all took huge facilities lease hits to their budgets. The basketball charges appear to cover their shortfalls for 2013-15, but the charges to women's hockey and volleyball more than covered their shortfalls. Indeed, it appears that the extra amounts that both paid were to cover the remaining shortfall for men's hockey. The Sicatoka mentioned this was done to more accurately reflect the true cost of using REA for each sport. While likely being more accurate, it does not reflect the apparent terms of the rental/lease agreement as to how much each sport should pay to use REA. It will be interesting to see the 2018 NCAA financials for UND, but for that we must wait until early 2019.

I have no knowledge what happened in 2013, but in looking at the total ticket sales for all the sports year by year you can plainly see that UND only paid 1.2% of the total to the arena. They then paid between 57.5% and 67.6% in total ticket sales over the next three years in what appears to be an effort to pay the amount owed for use of the arena in 2013. For the 7 years the total amount paid to use REA comes out to 49.9% of all ticket sales for the 5 sports that actually use the arena to play games.

So, North Dakota didn’t rent/lease REA for $1 per year, but for about $1.8 million per year for the six teams that used it from 2009-16.


* women's volleyball for 2011 was 52.753%, which rounded up to 52.8% on the spreadsheet

Sean Pickett
06-12-2017, 10:31 AM
NCAA Hockey Financials (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Gmihpb5HmlREhM4rkC8HNrKyrNrPYFQNL31bf74DGDA/edit?usp=sharing)

Many posters here state over and over that the reported attendance figures for men’s hockey games include every ticket given away (at the least). After compiling the NCAA Financial information for the 30 schools that I obtained the reports from I thought I would see how each school’s ticket sales translated into average ticket price based on their reported home attendance. Therefore, I added total attendance and average ticket cost columns for men and women to the spreadsheet. The average ticket cost was determined by dividing the total ticket revenue by the total reported attendance for each year. Based on the average ticket cost per attendee for each of the 29 schools with men’s hockey it is obvious that a percentage of those reported attending paid less, or nothing. Since I believe students at most schools get in for free this is to be expected, but I was surprised at the numbers.

Minnesota tops the averaged cost with an average ticket cost of $26.01, while Bowling Green is at the bottom with an average ticket cost of just $4.39. No other school’s average tops $20, with Arizona State second at $18.42. The averaged average was just $9.92 for the 29 schools. Year by year Minnesota holds all top 7 spots, with average ticket costs ranging from $30.47 in 2013-14 to a low of $22.69 in 2010-11. Michigan holds 5 of the next 6, with only Arizona State in 2016 sneaking in at 10th. Connecticut holds the bottom 5 spots, all from 2009-14 when they were in Atlantic Hockey.

Going back to the total averaged ticket sales, Minnesota is at the top, with over $5.3 million in revenue, North Dakota is second at over $3.4 million, with Wisconsin and Michigan both over $2 million. Yet, on the averaged per attendee cost North Dakota is 7th and Wisconsin is 11th. One school that stands out with lower than expected overall ticket sales is UMass Lowell, with an averaged $446 thousand, although their yearly sales rose to over $691 thousand in 2015 and to over $696 thousand in 2016. Still that raised their average ticket cost to just $6.75 in 2015 and actually dropped to $6.55 in 2016.

I also looked at each school's yearly ticket revenue vs attendance and I created a spreadsheet with charts (https://app.box.com/s/f5sh4ivj9ook5qzfb7w8r44qmkof7r7j) showing the correlation of the two to each other and the average ticket cost. Of course the average ticket cost is not the face value price for a ticket, but it can be seen that the rise or drop of the average ticket cost does appear to have had an impact on total attendance. I put the spreadsheet on Box because it does a much better job of displaying charts correctly (and in this case Google totally butchered the charts).


Sean Pickett
06-17-2017, 11:52 AM
NCAA Hockey Financials (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Gmihpb5HmlREhM4rkC8HNrKyrNrPYFQNL31bf74DGDA/edit?usp=sharing)

The Chronicle of Higher Education’s article on college sports clearly considered student fees, direct local, state and federal government support, and direct and indirect institutional support all forms of subsidies to athletic departments. I have followed this in my earned profit/loss column, in which those revenue categories are subtracted from the reported overall revenues for each school before overall operating expenses are subtracted to see how well each hockey program has been doing in balancing revenues and expenses.

Looking at the 30 schools for which I only have EADA reports for shows 15 that reported an averaged overall profit from Boston University’s largest of $869,533 to AIC’s smallest of $436. Twelve balanced their revenue and expenses, with 3 showing an averaged loss, from Mercyhurst’s smallest of $23,915 to Notre Dame’s largest of $2.4 million. Without additional information it is impossible to know what each school reported in the way of revenue and expenses.

Looking at the 29 schools that provided NCAA Financial information shows 13 reported an averaged overall profit and 16 an averaged overall loss, but only 3 showed an averaged earned profit and 26 showed an averaged earned loss. The three schools that reported an averaged profit without subsidies were Minnesota, Penn State and Wisconsin, all B1G schools. The averaged amounts of the subsidies among the 29 schools ranged from almost $1.6 million for Northern Michigan to just $107 for Michigan State. However, another eight schools, including Minnesota and Penn State, reported no subsidies among their revenue, so their total and earned profit or losses were the same. Among those eight Massachusetts had the largest averaged loss, almost $1.7 million, with Minnesota showing an averaged profit of over $3.1 million.

Looking at the yearly reports only 24 out of 194 show a team making an earned profit. Minnesota leads the way doing so all 7 years, Penn State all 4 years, Wisconsin 4 years, Nebraska-Omaha 3 years, Michigan and St. Cloud State 2 years, and Minnesota-Duluth and North Dakota* 1 year.


* see my post on UND and REA costs

06-18-2017, 04:57 AM
This is great work, and I apologize that I can't help with getting info from UAH. That's a bridge that even I can't really burn.


Sean Pickett
06-18-2017, 04:40 PM
This is great work, and I apologize that I can't help with getting info from UAH. That's a bridge that even I can't really burn.

GFMThanks for your compliment, I appreciate it. It took over two months, between waiting for requested reports and my expanding the project well beyond the original concept, to finally get it online. Now my problem is there is so much information in the workbook to write about.

I understand your concern and wish you continued success with UAHHockey.com. BGSUHockey.com (http://www.bgsuhockey.com/) was able to obtain Coach Corbett's contract due to the aid of an Alabama resident. Maybe I'll be as lucky to have an Alabama resident contact me to offer to make the request.


06-18-2017, 08:17 PM
Like most things with our state government, our "open" records legislation is ... crap.


06-19-2017, 04:27 PM
Holy smokes the time to do all this. Nice job and thanks Sean.

06-21-2017, 07:35 AM
Impressive work. Thanks for compiling. Even with all that work, it's really tough to see what's really going on at some of these programs.

Sean Pickett
06-21-2017, 09:44 AM
Impressive work. Thanks for compiling. Even with all that work, it's really tough to see what's really going on at some of these programs.I agree, which is why when I first posted (http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?119842-REPORT-North-Dakota-cutting-women-s-hockey&p=6477802&viewfull=1#post6477802) about North Dakota's NCAA financials on the REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey (http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?119842-REPORT-North-Dakota-cutting-women-s-hockey) thread on the Women's Forum (http://board.uscho.com/forumdisplay.php?6-Women-s-College-Hockey) I stated "it’s actually a bit of a fool’s errand to try and compare a team’s revenue and expenses without also looking at the overall athletic revenue and expenses." That is one of the reasons I ended up compiling each school's overall athletic budgets in the workbook, but even then, as you say, it is sometimes tough to be what is really going on. However, some categories are pretty plain to understand, for example ticket sales, student fees, direct support, contributions on the revenue side and athletic aid, coaches compensation, severance, recruiting, travel on the expenses side. Others, like equipment & uniforms, games-day expenses and indirect revenue/expenses are much hard to understand, as what schools but in those categories can be different from school to school and year to year. Still the NCAA has tried to standardize the reports and categories so they are apples to apples, even if they are Granny Smiths to MacIntoshes.

I also compiled 7 years worth of financials because I realized it was very tough to understand and compare numbers when looking at just one year. For example, in 2013 Wisconsin reported $8.3 and $7.1 million in donations to men's and women's hockey, over three times more than the next closest year. If you only saw that report you might think that they received that amount in donations every year. Looking at expenses they also reported over $9 million for men's and women's in direct facilities expenditures, again over three times more than the next closest year. Based on these numbers I think that the contributions were for the purpose of paying down the debt on LeBahn and Kohl Arenas. When looking at 7 years of financials you can see that while Wisconsin has been receiving a fair amount in the way of donations for the hockey teams, it is usually far less (and also a much smaller percentage of all donations to athletics). The same goes for facilities debt/maintenance costs.