but even worse, there was nobody at Forbes that decided to look into whether the data used was valid to arrive at the conclusion, which seems to be common these days
just publish/broadcast what anybody gives you, especially if it will grab consumers attention
most people would assume Forbes is a good source for financial information, but it seems fake news is everywhere, and Forbes is no better than the National Enquirer
I guess these days you have to assume what you see and read is fake unless you can prove otherwise
After I posted I thought more about the professor using the multiplier of the highest paid NHL player vs the average NHL salary and decided to look into it more. The 2019-20 salaries listed on Hockey-Reference.com show a new highest paid player, Mitch Marner, at $16 million and a higher average salary at $3,297,344, but the multiplier is almost the same, 4.85 vs 4.87. However, breaking the numbers down by team shows that Marner’s multiplier for his team is only 3.65, as Toronto has the highest payroll in the league. Looking at each teams' highest paid player vs the average NHL salary show a multiplier range from Marner’s 4.85 to Colorado’s and Calgary’s highest paid players with a low of just 2.05. And when comparing players against their team’s average salary the high is Edmonton’s 4.86 to Calgary’s low of 1.92. In a true free market each school would be able to determine the value of their players and not all would receive the same multiplier. Still, I averaged the team and league multipliers for each team’s highest paid player(s) and the team average is just under 3.14 and the league average is just over 3.14. Therefore, I have added a sheet to my spreadsheet that uses this multiplier and not Berri’s 4.87. Using it shows that the numbers moving even more in the direction of the current scholarship model vs a paid model for the top players.
I also added a second sheet for each school using the 2017-18 numbers. Since most players are not top performers I added average pay columns to compare the EADA revenue and NCAA reported and earned revenue vs the actual or estimated scholarship and meal allowance amounts each school awarded. It turns out that 9 of the 11 (I’m still waiting on Minnesota State) public schools I have data for awarded more in scholarships and meal allowances than the average pay calculated using the EADA numbers. Ten of the 11 did so using the NCAA reported revenue and all 11 did so using the NCAA earned revenue numbers, with the difference increasing in the favor of the players. Of the 24 private schools, all 16 that offer scholarships awarded more in estimated scholarship amounts than the average pay calculated using the EADA numbers.
Furthermore, Profosser Berri did not mention (and I overlooked) that if the players were paid then that would be taxable income. As far as I'm aware scholarships and meal allowances are not taxable.
To make my value of players spreadsheet relevant to the men I had added a sheet that has the 2018 numbers for most of the schools that have menís programs (Army and Air Force donít submit EADA reports and I donít have Armyís NCAA financials, while Iím still waiting on Minnesota State for their 2017 & 2018 NCAA financials). As expected, with the higher revenues for the menís programs most of them donít do as well when it comes to having scholarships and meal allowances being an equal or better value than if the players were paid.
The schools awarded $42,309,659 in scholarships and another $1,039,948 in meal allowance, just 30.6% of their combined reported EADA revenue (minus Army & Air Force) of $141,507,277. Even when the 10 schools that donít offer scholarships are excluded itís just 34.6% of reported EADA revenue. Both fall far short of the womenís 51.7% of their combined reported EADA revenue going to scholarships and meal allowances ($23,148,059 in scholarships and another $200,983 in meal allowances against $45,205,433 in EADA reported revenue) for all schools and the 64.4% of reported EADA revenue when the 8 non-scholarship schools are excluded. That said, 16 of the 28 public schools that give men's scholarships did give out more in scholarships and meal allowances than the average pay each player would have received based on reported NCAA earned revenue. And the estimated scholarships given out by 10 of the private schools is 59.9% of their reported EADA revenue, so it likely even more of the private schools give out at least 50% of their earned revenue in scholarships and meal allowances.
What is the motivation behind paying college athletes? I can see where the athletes and parents would be for this, but most just seem proud and grateful for the opportunity. And there is the matter of taxes, parents would lose their kid as a credit/deduction (which it could be argued should be the case anyway since the schools are supporting them now).
Today there is a lot of discussion about white privilege but in the deepest darkest days of Jim Crow laws whites never had the advantage over blacks that athletes today enjoy over the rest of the students. That should be the real discussion, athlete privilege in universities.
Is it because the world of sophisticated left coast liberals has been turned upside down by Midwesterners who have just fallen off the turnip truck and southern hillbillies who have risen above them in athletic competition? Is it the money managers and lawyers who see more potential clients? Are alumni tired of paying star athletes under the table and want recognition for their efforts? Anybody know?
--Intercollegiate athletics, as we have known it, will become the near-exclusive franchise of the P5.
--Athlete salaries will drive still another wedge between athletes and the undergrad student bodies, who increasingly perceive athletes as being a privileged and pampered class that does not represent them.
--We will see more and more former star college athletes--those that don't get drafted by or make it in the pros--struggling to make a living because they won't have a "valueless" college degree to fall back on.
--It wouldn't surprise me if a significant number of non-P5 institutions quit what has become the athletics arms race and de-emphasize intercollegiate athletics.
I don't claim to be a futurist but I see an uncertain future ahead for college hockey. Funding of athlete payrolls (the lion's share of which will surely go to football and hoops) will almost inevitably have to be at least partially offset by dropping other sports.
Bottom line: The rich will get richer. The rest of us are irrelevant.
Last edited by Split-N; 10-31-2019 at 09:10 AM.
"Through the years, we ever will acclaim........"
I only have the NCAA financials for 29 public schools that play DI hockey, only 19 which are full DI programs. Of those 19 the total earned revenue for 2018 averages $64,626,647 per school, but the median is just $15,663,354, since the B1G schools and Arizona State account for the bulk of the revenue. OSU tops the table with $205.5 million and with ASU bringing up the rear of the P5 schools with $93 million. Of the rest of the schools UConn is tops with $40.3 million, Air Force next with $19.8 million and UMass Lowell at the bottom with just $3.2 million in earned revenue. However, most people donít even look at the earned revenue and just see the reported revenue, which also includes the subsidies that the schools and local, state and federal governments provide to fund athletics. Looked at this way the average revenue for the 19 schools jumps to $80.8 million and the median jumps to $48.1 million. OSU still leads and since they report no subsidies their revenue remains $205.5 million, but ASU revenue rises to $113.6 million. Of the rest UConn revenue rises to $79.3 million, Air Force revenue goes to $60.1 million and UMass Lowell revenue goes to 21.3 million.
That looks great, but as mentioned; when expenses are looked at you see a different picture. OSU expended $203.8 million of its revenue, leaving a profit of just $1.75 million. Of the $203.8 million, $25.05 million ($21.3 million on scholarships and $3.75 million on meals) goes to the athletes. If OSU had to spend another $75 million paying the athletes 50% of their revenue it is likely many sports would have to be dropped. ASU expended $126.8 million, $13.2 million more than their reported revenue and $33.8 million more than their earned revenue. They spent $17.55 million ($15.7 million on scholarships and $ 1.85 million on meals) on the athletes and if they had to spend another $46.5 million paying athletes 50% of their earned revenue that would totally wreck their athletic budget and as mentioned, they might not be able to survive.
Of course, when most people talk about paying the athletes they actually only mean the football and menís basketball players. Looking at OSU for 2018 football revenue was $110.7 million and expenses were $46.1 million, for a earned profit of $64.4 million. They awarded $6.6 million ($4.1 million in scholarships and $2.5 million in meals) to the athletes, a far cry from $55.3 million (50% of revenue). And even if the players received that amount the football program would still have made $15.6 million profit. OSU menís basketball revenue was $24 million and expenses were $22 million, although $6.4 million of that was for severance. If that was not counted then the basketball team made $8.4 million in earned profit. They awarded $711 thousand ($616 thousand in scholarships and $95 thousand in meals) to the athletes, again a far cry from $12 million (50% of revenue). However, if OSU did pay out the $12 million the program would have lost $3.6 million (or $10 million with the severance included). So, paying the football and menís basketball athletes 50% of revenue would have reduced the amount OSU had available for other sports programs by $60 million.
Looking at ASU, it is a very different picture. For 2018 football revenue was $50.1 million and expenses were $52.8 million, for a loss of $2.7 million (although $12.9 million was for severance). If that was not counted football would have made a profit of $10.2 million. They awarded $4.5 million ($3.6 million in scholarships and $905 thousand in meals) to the athletes, a fraction of $25 million (50% of revenue). And if the players had received that amount the football program would have lost $10.3 million not including the severance ($23.2 million with it included). ASU menís basketball revenue was $8.7 million and expenses were $8.1 million, for a small profit of $600 thousand. They awarded $581 thousand ($500 thousand in scholarships and $81 thousand in meals) to the athletes, again, a fraction of $4.35 million (50% of revenue). If ASU paid that to the players then the team would have lost $3.75 million. If ASUís football and menís basketball programs lost $14 million dollars a year combined it would be hard for the school to keep either of them going, let alone the rest of their sports programs.
I didn't think any of these proposals equated with schools paying any athletes a salary, but rather the NCAA would no longer prevent an athlete from profiting off his/her likeness, from advertising, etc.?
Towards the end of the 30-for-30 on the Fab Five, Mitch Albom is listening to Chris Webber complain that his jersey is being sold for $75 apiece and he doesn't get a cut. Under these new rules that would change. But it wouldn't necessarily be Michigan paying Webber a salary per se. At least this is how I understand the rule change (and I admit I may not have this right)."NCAA Football" was one of EA Sports' top-selling titles prior to its cancellation. Electronic Arts CEO Andrew Wilson signaled earlier this month, weeks after California passed a law allowing college athletes to sign endorsement deals, that the company was open to producing a new version if legal obstacles related to student-athlete compensation subsided.
"Our position is we would love to build a game," Wilson said during an interview at the Wall Street Journal Tech Live conference. "If there's a world where the folks who govern these things are able to solve for how to pay players for the use of their name and likeness and stats and data, we would jump at the opportunity to build a game in a heartbeat."
Last edited by TalonsUpPuckDown; 10-31-2019 at 02:31 PM.
Don't kid yourself. For the big guys, the end game is play for pay under whatever guise (stipend/allowance/grant/salary) works.
Last edited by Split-N; 11-01-2019 at 08:25 AM.
"Through the years, we ever will acclaim........"
I'm still waiting for Minnesota State's 2017 & 2018 financials to finish updating my spreadsheet, but I wanted to respond to Jim Connelly's comment "for the two Alaskans schools, this is their problem. Funding for these programs is inadequate and needs to be bolstered and not reduced." in the latest TMQ .
Looking at their NCAA financial reports for 2010-2018 (and the EADAs for Alabama Huntsville and Minnesota State for 2017 & 2018) shows that both schools have spent more than most of the the other WCHA teams. Since the new WCHA formed in 2013 Anchorage has had the highest average spending, with Fairbanks fourth:
Average hockey program expenses 2013-18 (in millions)
Alaska Anchorage 2.39
Northern Michigan 2.31
Michigan Tech 2.30
Alaska Fairbanks 2.28
Minnesota State 2.20
Bowling Green 1.65
Bemidji State 1.64
Alabama Huntsville 1.46
Ferris State 1.39
Lake Superior 1.22
For the 2017-18 season both Alaska schools did slightly reduce their spending, but still were 3rd and 5th:
Northern Michigan 2.69
Michigan Tech 2.40
Alaska Anchorage 2.33
Minnesota State 2.19
Alaska Fairbanks 2.09
Bowling Green 1.85
Bemidji State 1.70
Alabama Huntsville 1.52
Ferris State 1.43
Lake Superior 1.14
Of 30 public schools (excluding Army) Northern Michigan is 14th overall for 2017-18, MTU is 18th, UAA is 20th, Minnesota State is 22nd and UA_ is 24th, with the other five at the bottom (26th-30th). And when looking at the reported expenses from the EADAs for the private schools NMU is 22nd out of 59 schools, MTU is 29th, UAA is 31st, Minnesota State is 33rd, UA_ is 37th, Bowling Green is 40th, Bemidji State is 44th, Alabama Huntsville is 45th, Ferris State is 49th and Lake Superior State is 56th (the other bottom six schools do not offer scholarships). So, if the two Alaska schools are underfunded what does that say about Bowling Green, Bemidji State, Alabama Huntsville, Ferris State and Lake Superior State?
It would be interesting to see travel broken out from the Alaska schools' budgets. Could that be the difference?
Average travel expenses 2013-18 (2013-16 for MSUM) in thousands:
Alaska Fairbanks 364
Alaska Anchorage 325
Michigan Tech 250
Minnesota State 242
Bowling Green 199
Ferris State 173
Lake Superior 169
Bemidji State 157
Travel expenses 2018 in thousands:
Alaska Fairbanks 367
Michigan Tech 310
Northern Michigan 278
Alaska Anchorage 259
Bemidji State 205
Bowling Green 193
Ferris State 156
Lake Superior 152
Guarantees also are part of the difference.
Average Guarantees 2013-18 in thousands:
Alaska Fairbanks 248
Alaska Anchorage 115
2018 guarantees in thousands:
Alaska Fairbanks 187
Alaska Anchorage 97
Alaska Fairbanks 16.0%
Lake Superior State 13.9%
Ferris State 12.5%
Bowling Green 12.1%
Michigan Tech 10.9%
Minnesota State 10.9%
Northern Michigan 10.0%
Bemidji State 9.6%
Travel as a percentage of each current (except UAH & MSUM) WCHA school's expenses for 2018:
Alaska Fairbanks 17.6%
Lake Superior State 13.4%
Michigan Tech 12.9%
Bemidji State 12.1%
Ferris State 10.9%
Bowling Green 10.4%
Northern Michigan 10.3%
FWIW, I did a quick check of these schools endowments, they are paltry compared to those of many other schools, in fact the endowment TOTAL of these schools don't come close to a single Big Ten school (in the billions)and are a drop in the bucket of most Ivies(in the tens of billions), I would guess each Ivy school gets more from just one dead alumni each year than all these schools have managed to accumulate in total
Lake Superior = 14 million
Ferris = 34
Al-Huntsville = 75
Bemidji = 23
Bowling Green = 138
Mankato = 59
Michigan Tech = 96
Northern Mich = 50
Alaska Anchorage = 50
Alaska fairbanks = 143
As an example, I looked up my alma mater's endowment, a small state school (at one time the smallest college in the SUNY system, until a bunch of 2-year schools turned into 4-year schools, who are even smaller) -- Potsdam State.
Potsdam has an endowment of $29 million. Despite the size of the school, it is one of the largest endowments among colleges (not universities) in the SUNY system. Part of that I suspect is due to its very strong computer science (which is what I went for) and math programs, degrees that pay a lot in the real world. (And I'm sure a music school producing Rene Fleming got a lot of donations from her, LOL)
But then I looked up the other North Country schools, and it should be no surprise the ratio of cost of school is directly related to the size of the endowment.
Clarkson -- $186 mil.
St. Lawrence -- $306 mil.
[Former] SUNYAC Correspondent
U.S. College Hockey Online
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)