NCAA Hockey Financials

[Sean Pickett]

NCAA Hockey Financials

As “The Seventeen” here should already know, I’ve been working on compiling the NCAA Financial information for the 30 public schools and 2 service academies. It has taken far longer than I expected, but I now have copies of the reports for all 14 public schools that sponsored women’s ice hockey from 2010 to 2016. The schools fall into three categories: B1G schools (Minnesota, Ohio State, Penn State and Wisconsin), other DI schools (Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Vermont), and DII schools that play up in hockey (Bemidji, Minnesota State, Minnesota-Duluth, St. Cloud and Wayne State (2010-11)).

That still left the 25 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). 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 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 be allowed 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. 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.

Notes
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

[Sean Pickett]

NCAA Hockey Financials

As I mentioned in my previous post the public schools’ that sponsor women’s hockey fall into three groups: B1G schools (Minnesota, Ohio State, Penn State and Wisconsin), other DI schools (Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Vermont), and DII schools that play up in hockey (Bemidji, Minnesota State, Minnesota-Duluth, St. Cloud and Wayne State (2010-11)).

In looking at the overall averages (7 years for all but Penn State (4 years) and Wayne State (2 years)), 3 of the B1G schools had the highest three average expenses (Wisconsin, Minnesota and Penn State), with Ohio State 6th. Not surprisingly, most of the other DI schools are next, with the exception of Maine near the bottom (New Hampshire, 4th; North Dakota, 7th; Connecticut, 8th; Vermont, 9th; and Maine, 13th). The DII schools are at the bottom with the exception of Minnesota-Duluth, which is 5th, with the rest 10th, 11th, 12th and 14th. Wisconsin is in first by an extremely large amount, mostly due to payments on the debt on LeBahn Arena, with Minnesota second, $100 thousand ahead of Penn State, but 3rd through 6th are separated by just $100 thousand as are 7th, 8th and 9th.

All but two (Bemidji State and Wayne State) averaged overall losses, with all having earned losses between $743 thousand and 2.8 million. However, for all but 2 of the schools the total average expenses for women’s hockey are under 10% of the school’s total average athletic expenses, with only Minnesota-Duluth at 17.2% and Bemidji State at 15.5% being over.

When you add the limited EADA information for the private schools the picture is a bit different. Syracuse takes the 2nd spot, with Boston University 3rd, Quinnipiac 5th, Northeastern 6th, Providence 10th, Rensselaer 11th, Clarkson 13th, St. Lawrence 14th and Boston College 15th. The six Ivies, RIT, Sacred Heart, Union, and Holy Cross fill out the 10 of the bottom 11 (along with Lindenwood), as they don’t offer athletic aid.

Of the 36 schools that sponsored both men’s and women’s hockey between 2009-16 only 3 schools have higher averaged expenses for their women’s teams: Mercyhurst (113.0%), Connecticut (103.6%, but this has changed since the men joined Hockey East), and Roberrt Morris (102.7%). Niagara averaged 95.1% of their men’s team until they dropped women’s hockey, with the rest ranging from St. Lawrence’s 85.5% to North Dakota’s 31.0%. A small part of this can be assigned to the fact that the women’s teams average slightly smaller than their men’s counterparts. Only Sacred Heart (101.5%) and North Dakota (100.5%) have averaged more participants on their women’s teams than their men’s teams. The rest have averaged between 98.2% (Penn State) and 75.0% (Merrimack) of their men’s teams.

When it comes to game-day expenses the women’s teams have a high of 82.5% of the men’s team (Bemidji State), to a low of 20.1% (Boston College), with the per Capita expense likewise ranginging from 90.0% (again Bemdiji State) to 21.4% (again Boston College).

For coaches compensation I only have the 13 public schools (12 for head and assistant coaches) that sponsored both men’s and women’s hockey. Here we have Minnesota-Duluth at the top, paying an average of 80.5% of their men’s head coach, Wisconsin not far behind at 76.1%, Connecticut at 69.8% (and dropping), and Bemidji at 64.4%. The total compensation the other 8 school’s head coaches are below 50%, with 5 in the 40-50% range, New Hampshire and North Dakota about 1/3 and Maine just 25.2%. For assistant coaches it’s a bit better, with 9 of the 12 averaging over 50%, from Connecticut’s 78.2% of their men’s assistants to St. Cloud’s 52.0%, with only Ohio State (46.0%), North Dakota (38.1%) and Maine (27.5%) less.

As far as athletic aid goes, I have reported amounts for 16 and estimates for another 12. Of these 28 schools the aid amounts are much better, with 8 schools averaging over 100% of their men’s teams, ranging from Mercyhurst’s estimated 143.0% to Minnesota-Duluth’s 102.2%. Part of this is due to three of the school’s (Mercyhurst, Robert Morris and Niagara – which dropped the sport after the 2011-12 season) being in Atlantic Hockey on the men’s side and being restricted in who many scholarships they could offer. However, 13 more are reported or estimated be averaging at least 90% of their men’s aid amounts. Of the remaining 7 schools 3 averaged over 80% and one is just under at 79.3%, leaving just Merrimack, Holy Cross and Sacred Heart. Merrimack has only one year’s average and will be climbing over the next several years as they continue to add scholarships, as will Holy Cross as they join Hockey East.

Sean

[GTOWN]

Wow, just wow! can't imagine how much work you put into this. Very interesting and enlightening. Thank you.

Do DIII schools have to publish their financial info as well or do they only submit EADA info?

[vicb]

Wow, just wow! can't imagine how much work you put into this. Very interesting and enlightening. Thank you.

Do DIII schools have to publish their financial info as well or do they only submit EADA info?

You sometime can see what the Head Coaches salary is by looking at the schools tax return Form 990 if he/she is considered one of the highest paid employees:

[Russell Jaslow]

You sometime can see what the Head Coaches salary is by looking at the schools tax return Form 990 if he/she is considered one of the highest paid employees:

New York State publishes the salaries of every public employee. Every single one. Sometimes the database is a year behind, but that's close enough.

https://www.seethroughny.net/payrolls/

[PrezdeJohnson09]

Interesting to note that Plattsburgh State's women's coach makes within $2,000 what Bob Emery makes.... and both trail the Oswego men's coach by over $10,000 for 2016...

Do Bob or Kevin teach classes? I know Coach Gosek at least used to teach class or two. Not sure if he still does.

[GTOWN]

Do Bob or Kevin teach classes? I know Coach Gosek at least used to teach class or two. Not sure if he still does.

Diane Dillon at Oswego is listed as a lecturer, nothing about her being the head coach of the women's program. Same with her assistant coach.....

[Sean Pickett]

Wow, just wow! can't imagine how much work you put into this. Very interesting and enlightening. Thank you.

Do DIII schools have to publish their financial info as well or do they only submit EADA info?

Thanks for your appreciation. Yes, it was a lot of work, more so because I kept adding information to what was available in the NCAA and EADA reports.

No public school has to publish their NCAA reports, although several do, but generally all are required to make them available when requested (and they can charge for their work). I believe Pennsylvania public schools are exempt from their FOIA law, but Penn State is one of the schools that published their last several years worth of reports.

You sometime can see what the Head Coaches salary is by looking at the schools tax return Form 990 if he/she is considered one of the highest paid employees:

You can also request coaches contracts using FOIA requests. BGSUHockey.com did so for the contracts of the 10 WCHA head coaches two years ago. I posted a comparison between the coaches total compensation and salaries in a thread I created over on the Men's Forum.

New York State publishes the salaries of every public employee. Every single one. Sometimes the database is a year behind, but that's close enough.

https://www.seethroughny.net/payrolls/

Do you know if this list includes bonuses and benefits, or just the base salaries?

Sean

[Russell Jaslow]

Do Bob or Kevin teach classes? I know Coach Gosek at least used to teach class or two. Not sure if he still does.

Technically, all the SUNY coaches are lecturers/teachers/professors, and often that is how their job title is officially listed. So, they do have to teach some sort of class at some point. How serious that's taken, I don't know. It's also why most coaches salaries at SUNY schools are based more on years of service than actual results.

[Russell Jaslow]

Do you know if this list includes bonuses and benefits, or just the base salaries?

Sean

Definitely not benefits. I looked up my sister, and I know that's just her salary. :-)

I don't know about bonuses, since my sister is just a phys. ed. teacher, so she certainly doesn't get any bonuses...

[GTOWN]

Technically, all the SUNY coaches are lecturers/teachers/professors, and often that is how their job title is officially listed. So, they do have to teach some sort of class at some point. How serious that's taken, I don't know. It's also why most coaches salaries at SUNY schools are based more on years of service than actual results.

Kevin at Plattsburgh is listed as Head Coach. Diane at Oswego is listed as Lecturer. Clearly there's some wiggle room......

[Scott_TG]

Do Bob or Kevin teach classes? I know Coach Gosek at least used to teach class or two. Not sure if he still does.

When I was a student I remember going through the course locator looking around at things outside my major for electives and noticed various coaches taught classes in the Phys Ed/Health and Wellness dept (forget the specific name).

Only course I ever took that was taught by a member of the athletic faculty was a Sports in American Culture honors seminar taught by now-retired AD Bruce Delventhal.

Edit:

Found the Course Schedule for Fall 17:

Houle is listed for two sections of Strength/Cardio Conditioning and one section of Beg/Intermed Swimming.

Emery is listed for a class named "Wellness &Fitness Cont Society" ("Examines how current lifestyle in society influences an individual's wellness decisions and how an individual's wellness decisions affect changes in society. Basic knowledge of fitness, exercise, nutrition, disease, injury and their relationship to overall wellness. An overview of training and conditioning methods and general exercise program design. Individual considerations for positive health and wellness.")

Women's Assistant Coach Danielle Blanchard has one section of Ice Skating.

Men's Assistant Coach Stephen Moffatt is not on the course schedule.

[Sean Pickett]

NCAA Hockey Financials

I created I thread for NCAA Financials in both the Women’s and Men’s threads and as of this morning the women’s thread has 1,054 views and several posts, while the men’s thread has 737 and no posts. Not the response I was expecting from either forum.

Again, with only 14 schools worth of data for the women’s programs it is hard to make any definite statements, but only 3 teams had averaged ticket revenue in the higher 5 figures: Minnesota ($81,323), Minnesota-Duluth ($69,505) and Wisconsin ($55,930). At the other end three schools charged nothing for their women’s games: Connecticut, Maine and Ohio State. Of the other 8 only 3 had low 5 figure revenue: North Dakota had averaged $21,482, New Hampshire $15,612 and Penn State $12,318. The remaining 5 were all in the 4 figure range.

Looking at averaged reported total attendance, which includes all 39 schools that sponsored women’s hockey between 2010-16 shows only eight (Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, Minnesota-Duluth, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard and RIT) over 10,000. And it’s not like price is an issue. Beyond the schools that have free admission, most teams are gave away tickets so that the averaged cost runs from a high of $3.45 at Minnesota-Duluth to a low of $0.81 at Vermont. Wisconsin, with the highest attendance, was just $1.26, Minnesota, second, was $2.31, North Dakota, third, was $1.03

Looking at the yearly numbers in which I’ve include 2017 reported total attendance, does show an overall increase in from 2010 to 2016 of 20.8%, from 266,235 to 321,641. However, it has not been straight growth, as 3 of the 7 years had decreases. Still, I think it is a good sign. Unfortunately, besides UND dropping the sport, several other schools have seen declines in attendance. I’ve created a spreadsheet which has each team’s ticket revenue (when available) from 2010-16 and reported attendance totals from 2010-17 with charts for each school and overall.

WCHA

Bemidji State saw great growth from 2010 to 2012 as they more than tripled attendance, but they lost over a third of that figure in 2013 before regaining a lot of it by 2016. However, they had another sharp decline in 2017, losing over a quarter of that attendance. Minnesota lost some attendance from 2010 to 2011, but then had solid growth from 2011-15, increasing attendance more than 2½ times, from 17,066 to 46,862. However, attendance has dropped the past two years by over 7,000 (-16.6%). Minnesota State has seen attendance go down and up, and is currently on a modest 2 year upswing. Minnesota-Duluth has solid growth from 2010-13 and has been basically flat since. North Dakota likewise had solid growth from 2010-13, but then saw declines from 2013-17. Ohio State saw gradual declines from 2010-14, before nice increases from 2014-16 and another decline in 2017. St. Cloud State saw attendance declines from 2010-16 before a solid increase in 2017. Wisconsin may have limited future growth with the opening of LeBahn Arena. Before it opened in fall of 2012 Wisconsin saw solid growth from 2010-12, but with the opening if LeBahn attendance plunged by nearly half. Since then it has increased all but one year and has almost reached the level it was at before LeBahn opened. However, the reported attendance for 2017 was 125% capacity for LeBahn, so it is unlikely it can increase any more unless changes are made. The trade-off is that Wisconsin has seen ticket revenue more than double from 2010-16 and will likely increase again for 2017.

Hockey East

Boston College has seen almost steady growth, and doubled total attendance from 2010-17. This is what I like to see, as I believe this is more likely to lead to long term sustained growth and interest. Boston University saw a solid increase from 2010 to 2011, but was only able to maintain the attendance for 2 years, before dropping back to their 2010 level in 2014. However, they again saw a solid increase for 2016, but gave back a fair amount of that in 2017. Connecticut attendance decline from 2010-11 and then bounce up and down since, with 2017 being another upward swing. However, Connecticut has not had back-to-back years of growth, so it remains to be seen if they can build on this. Maine was gradual declines from 2010-14, before a decent increase in 2015, followed by another decline and a very small increase. Merrimack made a big splash in 2016 with total attendance over 8,000, but lost over 25% of that in 2017. New Hampshire has had one of the worst times from 2010-17, with attendance dropping every year except 2016. Northeastern had attendance plummet almost 2/3rds from 2010-11, then double from 2011-13 before dropping again in 2014. Since then they have had three years of growth. Providence attendance has bounced up and down since 2010, with a since increase in 2017, but without back-to-back years of growth during that time. Vermont saw growth from 2011-2014, but has had three straight years of decline since.

ECAC

Brown saw a rise from 2010 to ‘11, but then declines until 2015, before rises in 2016 and ‘17. Clarkson saw a large decline from 2010 to ‘11, before seeing rises from 2012-14. However, they then saw declines in 2015 and 2016, before another rise in 2017. Colgate nearly tripled their attendance totals from 2010-17, although not without a sharp decline in 2015. Cornell saw a huge gain from 2010 to ‘11 then remained steady until 2014, before seeing two years of large losses, leaving them quite a bit below their 2010 attendance even with a modest gain in 2017. Dartmouth saw a rise from ’10 to ’11, then losses in ’13, ’14, ’16 and ’17, around a decent increase in ’15. Harvard saw declines from 2010 to 2013, rises in ‘14 and ’15 and large losses in 2016 and ‘17, leaving them below their 2010 attendance. Princeton saw a drop from 2011 to ’12, but then 4 years of attendance growth through 2016, before a modest decline on 2017. Quinnipiac modest attendance losses in ’11 and ’12 before seeing growth through 2016, but then losing all of their 2016 gains in 2017. Rensselaer saw a general attendance decline from 2010-17. St. Lawrence saw a decline from 2010 to ’11, and then saw attendance bounce up and down to 2017. Union saw a modest decline from 2010-12, then an increase to 2015, before more fluctuation in ’16 and ’17. Yale had modest a decline from 2010 to ’11, then growth until 2015, before a dip in 2016 and slight growth in ’17.

CHA

Lindenwood saw solid growth from 2012-17 since they became a DI program, with the biggest growth in 2016, which was built upon in 2017. Mercyhurst attendance fluctuated but the overall trend was downward from 2012-2016. That was reversed in 2017 with a large increase of about 50%. Penn State started with solid attendance in 2014, but saw a drop in 2015 and only a partial recovery in 2016 before another drop in 2017. Overall it is a almost a 40% drop in total attendance. RIT attendance rose as they transitioned to a DI program, tripling attendance from 2010 to ’15. However, attendance dropped in ’16 and ’17, falling 37.5%. Robert Morris saw a large decline from 2010 to ’11, then modest losses until 2013, before 2 years of excellent growth. That was followed by a drop in 2016 before a rebound in ’17. Syracuse had a gain from 2010-11, but the losses in ’11 and ’12. They had a strong gain in 2014, but after being able to hold onto the gain in 2015 lost some in ’16 and even more in 2017, falling to their lowest total in 8 years.

Others

Holy Cross had three years of modest growth before losing most of the gains in 2014, ganing even more in 2015 than they had lost, losing that all in 2016 and again gaining even more than they had lost in 2017 and more than doubling their attendance. With the announcement that they will be joining Hockey East in 2018-19 it seems likely that their attendance should hold steady or even increase again in the coming season. Sacred Heart, saw their attendance grow for three years from 2010-13, before losing those gains from 2013-15. However, the losses were gained back and more from 2015-17.

Sean

[Sean Pickett]

NCAA Hockey Financials

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.

Of the 14 schools that I have NCAA Financials only two, Bemidji State ($344) and Wayne State ($65,346) reported an averaged overall profit. Of the 25 for which I only had EADA reports only 4 reported averaged profits: BU ($1,356), Clarkson ($29,991), RPI ($63,058) and Yale ($4,269). However, BU’s and Yale’s averaged overall profits are likely not accurate. BU only reported one year out of 7 with a profit, but reported balanced budgets for the other 6 years. Likewise, Yale reported balanced budgets for 3 years and a loss for only one year. Fifteen schools reported balanced revenue and expenses ($0) on EADA reports and the remaining 18 schools reported overall losses (both NCAA and EADA reports). The overall losses ranged from Wisconsin’s averaged $2.45 million to RIT’s averaged $3,865. It is probable that all the schools had earned losses and indeed, among the 14 public schools the earned losses ranged from Wisconsin’s averaged $2.78 million to Minnesota State’s averaged $743 thousand.

Looking at the yearly earned profit or losses it can be seen that for most of the 14 schools losses have increased between 2010 and 2016, if not each year. In the WCHA Bemidji State has gone from a loss of $745 thousand in 2010 to a loss of almost 1.2 million in 2016. Minnesota has seen a loss of a $837 thousand in 2010 grow to a loss of over $2 million in 2016. Minnesota State’s earned losses have ballooned from $479 thousand to over $1.2 million. Minnesota-Duluth has been among the best percentage wise, having their losses grow from $995 thousand in 2010 to a little less than $1.3 million in 2016. North Dakota, which started me on this project, saw losses double, from $1 million in 2010 to $2 million in 2016. Ohio State likewise saw a huge increase in their deficit for women’s hockey, going from $1.1 million in 2010 to $2 million in 2016. St. Cloud has gone from a $624 thousand loss to a $1.1 million loss. Wisconsin is a special case, going from a $2.15 million loss in 2010 to a $4.1 million loss in 2013 before dropping down to a $2.3 million loss in 2016. A full look at their numbers seems to show that a large percentage of Wisconsin’s losses are due to paying off the debt on LeBahn Arena, of which it appears over $9 million was paid in 2013.

In Hockey East the situation is not as bad as in the WCHA, but losses have increase for the 4 public schools. Connecticut is he most similar to the WCHA schools, as earned losses rose from $985 thousand in 2010 to 1.65 million in 2016. Maine is at the other of the spectrum, with losses growing from $750 thousand in 2010 to $813 thousand in 2014, before cutting expenses in 2015 and 2016 to reduce their deficit to $753 thousand in 2016. New Hampshire saw their losses rise from $1.34 million in 2010 to $1.56 million in 2016 and Vermont saw their losses increase from $1.13 million to $1.4 million in 2016. In the CHA Wayne State saw losses increase from $705 thousand in 2010 to $871 thousand in 2011, the last year of their program. Penn State, like Maine has worked to reduce their losses in their program’s short history. Losses went from $989 thousand in 2014 to $1 million in 2015 before dropping back to $928 thousand in 2016.

However, due to the different sizes of different schools’ athletic budgets, Minnesota and Wisconsin, at 1.8% and 3.8% of their total athletic budgets spent on women’s hockey, can afford their deficits far more than most of the other schools. From 2010-16 Clarkson averaged 22.9% of their total athletic budget on their women’s team, St. Lawrence 19.6%, and Minnesota-Duluth 17.2%. Among full DI schools Niagara spent the most, 11.3%, before dropping women’s hockey. Mercyhurst currently has the highest averaged percentage, 10.4%, and only three schools (Yale, 1.6%; Penn State, 1.4%; and Ohio State, 1.1%) spent less than Minnesota on women’s hockey as a percentage of their overall athletic budget. At the same time Minnesota has the second highest averaged expenses at over $1.7 million, only behind Wisconsin’s amazing $4.4 million averaged expenses.

Sean

[GTOWN]

NCAA Hockey Financials

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.

Of the 14 schools that I have NCAA Financials only two, Bemidji State ($344) and Wayne State ($65,346) reported an averaged overall profit. Of the 25 for which I only had EADA reports only 4 reported averaged profits: BU ($1,356), Clarkson ($29,991), RPI ($63,058) and Yale ($4,269). However, BU’s and Yale’s averaged overall profits are likely not accurate. BU only reported one year out of 7 with a profit, but reported balanced budgets for the other 6 years. Likewise, Yale reported balanced budgets for 3 years and a loss for only one year. Fifteen schools reported balanced revenue and expenses ($0) on EADA reports and the remaining 18 schools reported overall losses (both NCAA and EADA reports). The overall losses ranged from Wisconsin’s averaged $2.45 million to RIT’s averaged $3,865. It is probable that all the schools had earned losses and indeed, among the 14 public schools the earned losses ranged from Wisconsin’s averaged $2.78 million to Minnesota State’s averaged $743 thousand.

Looking at the yearly earned profit or losses it can be seen that for most of the 14 schools losses have increased between 2010 and 2016, if not each year. In the WCHA Bemidji State has gone from a loss of $745 thousand in 2010 to a loss of almost 1.2 million in 2016. Minnesota has seen a loss of a $837 thousand in 2010 grow to a loss of over $2 million in 2016. Minnesota State’s earned losses have ballooned from $479 thousand to over $1.2 million. Minnesota-Duluth has been among the best percentage wise, having their losses grow from $995 thousand in 2010 to a little less than $1.3 million in 2016. North Dakota, which started me on this project, saw losses double, from $1 million in 2010 to $2 million in 2016. Ohio State likewise saw a huge increase in their deficit for women’s hockey, going from $1.1 million in 2010 to $2 million in 2016. St. Cloud has gone from a $624 thousand loss to a $1.1 million loss. Wisconsin is a special case, going from a $2.15 million loss in 2010 to a $4.1 million loss in 2013 before dropping down to a $2.3 million loss in 2016. A full look at their numbers seems to show that a large percentage of Wisconsin’s losses are due to paying off the debt on LeBahn Arena, of which it appears over $9 million was paid in 2013.

In Hockey East the situation is not as bad as in the WCHA, but losses have increase for the 4 public schools. Connecticut is he most similar to the WCHA schools, as earned losses rose from $985 thousand in 2010 to 1.65 million in 2016. Maine is at the other of the spectrum, with losses growing from $750 thousand in 2010 to $813 thousand in 2014, before cutting expenses in 2015 and 2016 to reduce their deficit to $753 thousand in 2016. New Hampshire saw their losses rise from $1.34 million in 2010 to $1.56 million in 2016 and Vermont saw their losses increase from $1.13 million to $1.4 million in 2016. In the CHA Wayne State saw losses increase from $705 thousand in 2010 to $871 thousand in 2011, the last year of their program. Penn State, like Maine has worked to reduce their losses in their program’s short history. Losses went from $989 thousand in 2014 to $1 million in 2015 before dropping back to $928 thousand in 2016.

However, due to the different sizes of different schools’ athletic budgets, Minnesota and Wisconsin, at 1.8% and 3.8% of their total athletic budgets spent on women’s hockey, can afford their deficits far more than most of the other schools. From 2010-16 Clarkson averaged 22.9% of their total athletic budget on their women’s team, St. Lawrence 19.6%, and Minnesota-Duluth 17.2%. Among full DI schools Niagara spent the most, 11.3%, before dropping women’s hockey. Mercyhurst currently has the highest averaged percentage, 10.4%, and only three schools (Yale, 1.6%; Penn State, 1.4%; and Ohio State, 1.1%) spent less than Minnesota on women’s hockey as a percentage of their overall athletic budget. At the same time Minnesota has the second highest averaged expenses at over $1.7 million, only behind Wisconsin’s amazing $4.4 million averaged expenses.

Sean

Hi Sean,

when looking at the budget for all these programs I know that the full athletic scholarship costs get attached to each team. However, would it be fair to back out the average (since I don't think actuals are available) financial aid / academic scholarship that each of these schools gives their students?

My assumption goes like this: if the team didn't exist, the school would still incur a cost to attracting a replacement student (financial aid/academic scholarship), hence the true cost associated to the team should really be the incremental cost of the athletic scholarship vs what the school would have paid out anyway.

I know, I'm reaching.....

Cheers
GTOWN

[Eeyore]

My assumption goes like this: if the team didn't exist, the school would still incur a cost to attracting a replacement student (financial aid/academic scholarship), hence the true cost associated to the team should really be the incremental cost of the athletic scholarship vs what the school would have paid out anyway.

This would depend upon whether a school has a fixed budget for financial aid that is distributed across the number of students that receive it, or whether the amount spent depends upon the specific students accepted. I'd also be very curious as to how a school's overall financial aid policy, such as Michigan's decision to charge zero tuition to any in-state student from a family that makes less than $65,000 a year, affects the accounting cost of athletic scholarships.

Another important thing to keep in mind is that a lot of the big Division 1 schools, especially those in the Big 10 and ACC, are facing a financial armageddon in the not so distant future. Whenever the next round of rights fees negotiations come up with ESPN, they are likely to involve a lot less money coming in to the athletic departments as ESPN's business model has collapsed. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing a lot of evidence that schools are thinking that far ahead in the capital expenditure decisions they are making right now. So, there could be a big crunch coming.

[GTOWN]

This would depend upon whether a school has a fixed budget for financial aid that is distributed across the number of students that receive it, or whether the amount spent depends upon the specific students accepted. I'd also be very curious as to how a school's overall financial aid policy, such as Michigan's decision to charge zero tuition to any in-state student from a family that makes less than $65,000 a year, affects the accounting cost of athletic scholarships.

Another important thing to keep in mind is that a lot of the big Division 1 schools, especially those in the Big 10 and ACC, are facing a financial armageddon in the not so distant future. Whenever the next round of rights fees negotiations come up with ESPN, they are likely to involve a lot less money coming in to the athletic departments as ESPN's business model has collapsed. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing a lot of evidence that schools are thinking that far ahead in the capital expenditure decisions they are making right now. So, there could be a big crunch coming.

Agree that the next round of TV rights won't be nearly as lucrative....perhaps coaches and staff of the higher profile sports will have to go back to making good wages instead of ridiculous wages. there are many ways to pare down costs without necessarily have to axe a program.

Regardless of whether financial aid is a fixed budget or not, there can still be an allocation assigned to each player. Just to put things into perspective: if the average student receives $10,000 in financial aid/scholarships (just a number I picked out of thin air - not based on anything) that's $250,000 for a typical hockey team, that may not solve all the perception issues but in combination with a little belt tightening, I'm sure it would make a lot of programs look much better.

[Sean Pickett]

Hi Sean,

when looking at the budget for all these programs I know that the full athletic scholarship costs get attached to each team. However, would it be fair to back out the average (since I don't think actuals are available) financial aid / academic scholarship that each of these schools gives their students?

My assumption goes like this: if the team didn't exist, the school would still incur a cost to attracting a replacement student (financial aid/academic scholarship), hence the true cost associated to the team should really be the incremental cost of the athletic scholarship vs what the school would have paid out anyway.

Regardless of whether financial aid is a fixed budget or not, there can still be an allocation assigned to each player. Just to put things into perspective: if the average student receives $10,000 in financial aid/scholarships (just a number I picked out of thin air - not based on anything) that's $250,000 for a typical hockey team, that may not solve all the perception issues but in combination with a little belt tightening, I'm sure it would make a lot of programs look much better.

That may be, but I really don't have any interest in compiling and crunching those numbers. Just getting the annual tuition costs for the private schools (and Alabama-Huntsville) was a real pain. If you want to try please do; it would be interesting to see what numbers you come up with.

Sean

[Eeyore]

Regardless of whether financial aid is a fixed budget or not, there can still be an allocation assigned to each player. Just to put things into perspective: if the average student receives $10,000 in financial aid/scholarships (just a number I picked out of thin air - not based on anything) that's $250,000 for a typical hockey team, that may not solve all the perception issues but in combination with a little belt tightening, I'm sure it would make a lot of programs look much better.

If the school has a fixed financial aid budget, you are positing a savings that is not just hypothetical, but fictional. If the 18 athletic scholarships were not offered, the school would collect an amount of tuition equal to 18 times the total tuition from the other students admitted, not 18 times the tuition minus $10,000.

[GTOWN]

If the school has a fixed financial aid budget, you are positing a savings that is not just hypothetical, but fictional. If the 18 athletic scholarships were not offered, the school would collect an amount of tuition equal to 18 times the total tuition from the other students admitted, not 18 times the tuition minus $10,000.

Let me start by saying that this is just for discussion purposes - to get the juices flowing so to speak! I went on to collegefactual.com and used their "average financial aid" number for each school, that means that averaged across freshmen this is the allocated aid package. Using this measure you could argue that if an athlete was replaced with a regular freshman then this is the "investment" that the school would be making in that freshman. I took Sean's "Earned Loss" for 2016 and adjusted for the impact of the average financial aid. The losses are still significant but reduced by as much as 55.5% in the case of Maine. (Sorry folks can't figure out how to make it look pretty!)
And yes, I'm in sales so I'm used to spinning numbers

School %Earned Loss Adj. Earned Loss
Wisconsin 13.6% $(1,999,121)
North Dakota 16.9% $(1,728,026)
Minnesota 18.8% $(1,638,464)
Ohio State 16.5% $(1,674,550)
Connecticut 27.4% $(1,198,294)
New Hampshire 27.9% $(1,125,058)
Vermont 36.9% $(881,577)
Minnesota Duluth 25.1% $(954,743)
Minnesota State 24.3% $(941,019)
Bemidji 27.5% $(852,542)
St. Cloud 24.9% $(844,680)
Penn State 40.7% $(549,955)
Maine 55.5% $(335,530)