SiouxMD Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 From the NCAA... Revenues and Expenses of Divisions I and II Intercollegiate Athletics Programs WARNING - This is a 36.68 MB *.pdf I have not yet read the entire report but here are some statistics of interest...2003. TOTAL REVENUES - Average - Page 24 29,400,000 - DI-A 07,200,000 - DI-AA 02,600,000 - DII w/football 01,700,000 - DII w/o football TOTAl EXPENSES - Average - Page 24 27,200,000 - DI-A 07,500,000 - DI-AA 02,700,000 - DII w/football 01,900,000 - DII w/o football PERCENT OF SCHOOLS REPORTING NET PROFIT - Page 26 & 27 ~52% - DI-AA w/ Institutional Support ~10% - DI-AA w/o Institutional Support ~50% - DII w/football and w/ Institutional Support ~05% - DII w/ football and w/o Institutional Support ~43% - DII w/o football and w/ Institutional Support ~07% - DII w/o football and w/o Institutional Support My simplified take...going DI-AA will increase revenues and expenses but on average UND athletics have a ~50% chance of being profitable. Not much different than remaining in DII. NOTE - Actual results may vary. Only 109 pages to go... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 From the Executive Summary to "EMPIRICAL EFFECTS OF DIVISION II INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS" by Orszag and Orszag, June 2005 (a study commissioned by the NCAA): Effects of moving from Division II to Division I - In our dataset, the schools switching divisions for all sports experienced an average real increase in spending of $3.7 million. Their revenue, by contrast, increased by an average of only $2.5 million - even including changes in institutional support, state government support, and student fees dedicated to athletics. As a result, the schools experienced an average deterioration in net operating revenue associated with intercollegiate athletics of more than $1 million. Furthermore, institutional support to athletics among these schools increased by an average of almost $2 million, implying that the net operating results excluding institutional support deteriorated by an average of more than $3 million. Student fees and state support also increased following a move to Division I. Excluding these increases further exacerbates the financial impact of switching on net operating revenue. - Every school for which we have data experienced a decline in net operating revenue excluding institutional support, state support, and student activity fees when moving from Division II to Division I. The median decline was almost $2 million and 90 percent of schools switching experienced a reduction of more than $740,000. Summary on going DI: - Spending up $3.7 MM - Revenues up only $2.5 MM -- most of $2.5 MM comes from institutional support http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/media_and_even...e_Athletics.pdf It's a good read (and a mere 192k). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxMD Posted March 15, 2006 Author Share Posted March 15, 2006 From the Executive Summary to "EMPIRICAL EFFECTS OF DIVISION II INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS" by Orszag and Orszag, June 2005 (a study commissioned by the NCAA): Summary on going DI: - Spending up $3.7 MM - Revenues up only $2.5 MM -- most of $2.5 MM comes from institutional support http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/media_and_even...e_Athletics.pdf It's a good read (and a mere 192k). In our dataset, the schools switching divisions for all sports experienced an average real increase in spending of $3.7 million. Their revenue, by contrast, increased by an average of only $2.5 million - even including changes in institutional support, state governmental support, and student fees dedicated to athletics. Their analysis consisted of 20 institutions between 1994 to 2002 who moved competely or partially from DII to DI. 52% of DI-AA (w/ institutional support) are profitable according to the NCAA. Statistically...10 of these institutions should be profitable (w/ institutional support)...yet none were profitable. Why? 1) Becoming profitable (w/ institutional support) takes more than 8 years after transitioning to DI. 2) Established DI programs have a financial advantage (permanent) over new DI programs. 3) Skewed sample set (ie...all 20 programs in the above analysis will historically fall in the 48% non-profitable catergory) 4) Other BTW...I am on page 59 now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDSU grad Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Sic, what's most interesting from the study you linked is that schools that are willing to make an investment are also willing to see a return. The table on page 18 shows that the median revenues and expenses for schools moving up were about equal (about 70,000 in the hole if my math is right). What this exactly means, I don't know, but maybe a conclusion you could draw is that schools who are committed to making a successful move will have more success financially? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlsiouxfan Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 These studies must be taken with a grain of salt when talking about UND's move up. UND is in a unique situation where remaining a D-II will further hurt the bottom line and lead to increased expenses. We're currently in a situation where it is extremely expensive for us to fill out our schedule. We have either spend more on travel or give out generous guarantees just to put together a quality schedule. We have a D-IAA program south of us that if we don't move up a division and choose to compete with will cut in to our fan base and lead to diminished attendance and donations to our Division II athletic programs. We leave a substantial amount of revenue on the table in our big money sport- hockey by continuing to remain a Division II. These studies also fail to factor in the increased donations that would come with a Division I move every other school has seen increased donations since announcing their moves and UND would experience the same. We're leaving a lot of money on the table by continuing to wait with this. Kupchella needs to make this move or we need to can him and get someone who will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxMD Posted March 15, 2006 Author Share Posted March 15, 2006 Sic, what's most interesting from the study you linked is that schools that are willing to make an investment are also willing to see a return. The table on page 18 shows that the median revenues and expenses for schools moving up were about equal (about 70,000 in the hole if my math is right). What this exactly means, I don't know, but maybe a conclusion you could draw is that schools who are committed to making a successful move will have more success financially? Page 18 - Figure 8 I interpret this as... "Schools Switching Divisions for All Sports" are on average $1.2 million in the red. "Schools Switching Division for One Sport" are on average $50k in the red. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Sic, what's most interesting from the study you linked is that schools that are willing to make an investment are also willing to see a return. The table on page 18 shows that the median revenues and expenses for schools moving up were about equal (about 70,000 in the hole if my math is right). What this exactly means, I don't know, but maybe a conclusion you could draw is that schools who are committed to making a successful move will have more success financially? What you see there is talked about two paragraphs above the table: Schools that switched divisions for all sports experienced a median real increase in spending of $2.5 million. The median change in revenue was $2.4 million Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 We're currently in a situation where it is extremely expensive for us to fill out our schedule. We have either spend more on travel or give out generous guarantees just to put together a quality schedule. Yes. That is the reality we face. We have a D-IAA program south of us that if we don't move up a division and choose to compete with will cut in to our fan base and lead to diminished attendance and donations to our Division II athletic programs. If you're saying Sioux fans will convert to Bison fans, no. If you're saying the corporate sponsor dollars may shift, yes, that's possible. We leave a substantial amount of revenue on the table in our big money sport- hockey by continuing to remain a Division II. Yes, in years we make a Frozen Four. Otherwise, not that much. These studies also fail to factor in the increased donations that would come with a Division I move every other school has seen increased donations since announcing their moves and UND would experience the same. The Orszag study talks about "revenues" meaning all sources and then breaks out "institutional support, state government support, and student fees" from that. Don't get me wrong. I'd like to move, but I'm also pragmatic enough to want to know cost and conference won't be millstones we drag around for decades. Let's know what is out there and not get surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxMD Posted March 15, 2006 Author Share Posted March 15, 2006 I think everyone can agree that it will require a substantial increase in spending for UND to go DI in all programs. There is no guarantee that DI will bring financial / athletic / academic success or failure. Statistically...the odds are 50/50 regarding financial success w/ institutional support and 10/90 (against) w/o institutional support at the DI-AA level. Maybe the current situation dictates UND move despite financial risk...it is not for me to decide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 I think everyone can agree that it will require a substantial increase in spending for UND to go DI in all programs. Yup. And that's where the conversation over here about "which programs" would make sense for a potential DI UND begins (and since it already exists we'll just point to it over there). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDSU grad Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 They spent $2.5 MM more. They only 'made' $2.4 MM more. (Ouch.)Well, I guess I'd consider that a wash, i.e. not statistically significant. So the question is, is having the bottom line stay the same a desirable outcome for moving to DI athletics? I don't think the higher-ups at NDSU ever stated one of their objectives from a move up was an increase in the bottom line (although I could be wrong). So I guess the answer for a lot of people would be yes. Worse? Where'd most of the $2.4 MM come from? Furthermore, institutional support to athletics among these schools increased by an average of almost $2 million ... Institutional support means dollars the universities had available that could have otherwise been spent on research or instructors or academic facilities. Well, I guess you would have to look at it as an investment. Is the "prestige" of being DI worth $2 MM a year? Is it possible to make up that $2 MM in increased enrollment (from being DI) or alumni giving (in other areas other that athletics)? The study you linked seems to say no, but that's probably an issue up for debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlsiouxfan Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 If you're saying Sioux fans will convert to Bison fans, no. If you're saying the corporate sponsor dollars may shift, yes, that's possible. Yes, corporate sponsorship dollars is one area where we'll start to lose out if we remain division II, but UND and ndsu also compete for North Dakota sports fans who have no strong allegiance to either of the universities. There are far more of these at the Ralph or the Al on a given weekend than us diehards and if we start losing these people we'll be playing to empty arenas and hurting in the pocketbook. Also, it isn't so far fetched to see the Division I label start turning allegiances. Just look at some of the recent signings. I know a few of these kids grew up lifelong Sioux fans and now they'll be suiting up for the bison. People in this state also want to support a program they feel is on the way up and right now watching the bison on compete on the national stage against the likes of Wisconsin and Minnesota is winning people over faster than our teams continuing their excellence at Division II. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmksioux Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Yes, corporate sponsorship dollars is one area where we'll start to lose out if we remain division II, but UND and ndsu also compete for North Dakota sports fans who have no strong allegiance to either of the universities. There are far more of these at the Ralph or the Al on a given weekend than us diehards and if we start losing these people we'll be playing to empty arenas and hurting in the pocketbook. Also, it isn't so far fetched to see the Division I label start turning allegiances. Just look at some of the recent signings. I know a few of these kids grew up lifelong Sioux fans and now they'll be suiting up for the bison. People in this state also want to support a program they feel is on the way up and right now watching the bison on compete on the national stage against the likes of Wisconsin and Minnesota is winning people over faster than our teams continuing their excellence at Division II. Not to mention kids being born between now and the next 10 or 20 years. Who do you think these kids will support when they get older and begin to build their allegiances? As much as I hate to say it, I would tend to think A DI NDSU would be more appealing than a DII UND Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Is it possible to make up that $2 MM in increased enrollment (from being DI) or alumni giving (in other areas other that athletics)? The study you linked seems to say no, but that's probably an issue up for debate. Figure 9 in the study shows that if you do it right (be in the best 10% making the change) you can show a "paper" (meaning include institutional support dollars) net positive in operating revenue. However, even there in the top 10% it required about $1 MM in institutional support to show this net positive. Know what you're buying, and what it's going to cost if you're buying it, is not a bad philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Is the "prestige" of being DI worth $2 MM a year? As a DI independent, the answer is "definitely not." In a DI league like the Mid-Con with generally negative perceptions, the answer is "no". In a Big Sky Conference that would provide positive branding of a school, the answer is probably "yes." If an upset over a top 25 team can be pulled off every year - the answer is "yes." The bigger issue is valuing how much DI athletics is worth as a quality of life issue. For a city like Fargo, a DI athletics program has a potential to enhance its quality of life, relative to cities like Sioux Falls, Rapid City, or Bismarck. If DI is truly important to Fargo's (or Grand Forks) Chamber of Commerce, perhaps they should directly subsidize it, as arguably, they benefit more than the University does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 For those interested, here is the annual distribution of DI basketball moneys from the NCAA tournament by conference: Distribution of Basketball-Related Moneys According to Number of Units by Conference So if you are a full member of a conference, the school receives the following $'s: (# of units earned by conference in last six years) x $122.8 million (total # units in last six years) x (# of teams in conference) Gain an NCAA Invitation -> earn one unit Win an NCAA Game -> earn one unit Annually, MidCon schools each received $101,000, while Big Sky schools each receive $133,000. By adding UNC and having lost in the first round for the last five years, BSC school's payout will likely drop to $101,000. If the BSC went to 12 schools, each schools payout could drop as low as $76,000. The presence of Gonzaga in the WCC earns the other seven schools in that conference an extra $250,000 above its otherwise minimum payment. "The basketball fund provides for moneys to be distributed to Division I conferences based on their performance in the Division I Men's Basketball Championship over a six-year rolling period (for the period 2000-2005 for the 2005-06 distribution). Independent institutions receive a full unit share based on its tournament participation over the same rolling six-year period. The basketball fund payments are sent to conferences and independent institutions in mid-April each year. One unit is awarded to each institution participating in each game, except the championship game. In 2004-05, each basketball unit was approximately $152,000 for a total $113.7 million distribution. In 2005-06, each basketball unit will be approximately $164,000 for a total $122.8 million distribution." http://www1.ncaa.org/finance/revenue_distribution_plan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 One other factor to consider in financial support is the success of the athletic programs. Long term this may be one of the most important factors. The novelty of going DI will wear thin if the program doesn't have success over a length of time. That can include conference success or upsets of big name programs on occassion. A program that is successful in DII at the national level on a consistent basis may provide more excitement and attract more dollars than a DI program that has limited success. UND will need to make the proper commitment in high visibility programs if they decide to go DI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlsiouxfan Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 One of the big reasons we've had the success at the Division II level we've had is because we've been able to get Division I level talent here at UND because of the distance between us and Division I schools. If we don't move up the quality of our atheletic teams will drop as these kids head to other programs. People are even less likely to support a mediocre division II team then they are a mediocre division I team. Case in point look at the past few recruiting classes for the men's basketball team. Look at this year's recruiting class for football. The fact is if we lose every kid we go up against ndsu and SDSU for we'll start seeing poor results on the playing field when we play the UNO's and Grand Valley's of the division II world. This isn't a question of maintaining the status quo. It's a choice between taking a risk and possibly moving forward or not and choosing to regress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dakotadan Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 And honestly how long are people going to continue to be interested in watching UND beat UM-Crookston, U-Mary and Mayville State. The thing that has turned me off the most is that each year, we are seeing more and more of these type of schools on our schedule. I don't know about everybody else, but I won't be very excited about an undefeated season in a Dakota Athletic Conference - East Division. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 ... we've been able to get Division I level talent here at UND because of the distance between us and Division I schools. ... we'll start seeing poor results on the playing field when we play the UNO's and Grand Valley's of the division II world. Don't the GVSU's and UNO's of the world face the same situation (nearby DIs) when it comes to recruits? I'd really like to see the books at NDSU, SDSU, and UNC to know what they are experiencing for expenses and revenues. That would give the clearest picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Don't the GVSU's and UNO's of the world face the same situation (nearby DIs) when it comes to recruits? Yeah, they probably do. But I think a big difference between these schools and UND is that UND and NDSU have always been the most visible universities in our region. UND and NDSU are the "flagship" institutions of our state. Down the road, if UND remains DII, we are in jeopardy of losing our "flagship" status. I'm afraid that fans of Michigan/Michigan St. or Nebraska-Lincoln, probably view schools like GVSU or UNO in the same way that we view Mayville St. or Mary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlsiouxfan Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Actually UNO pretty much has a monopoly on all of the talent that there isn't room for in Lincoln hence a lot of players who should be playing I-AA but don't have the opportunity because it's either full blown D-I or D-II and plus have the advantage of recruiting in some larger population areas than we have. Grand Valley recruits is in the fifth most populated state I believe and thus has a large area to recruit from. Not only that they've adopted the strategy employed by most Division I-AA schools by continuing to receive transfers from all of the area I-A schools. In a state like North Dakota we lack some of the advantages other schools in high population areas have. We've made up for it by offering the highest quality of football outside of the University of Minnesota and Wisconsin and have gotten kids who were snubbed by these two. If NDSU is soon viewed as the best school in the area after these two they'll start getting all of the talent and we'll suffer for it by not getting the talented players we were once getting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 If NDSU is soon viewed as the best school in the area after these two they'll start getting all of the talent and we'll suffer for it by not getting the talented players we were once getting. That's what I meant to say. UND and NDSU have always competed for recruits, and I think the DI label is gonna cause NDSU to win the vast majority of recruits, especially those from the twin cities area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmrg74 Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 Yeah, they probably do. But I think a big difference between these schools and UND is that UND and NDSU have always been the most visible universities in our region. UND and NDSU are the "flagship" institutions of our state. Down the road, if UND remains DII, we are in jeopardy of losing our "flagship" status. I'm afraid that fans of Michigan/Michigan St. or Nebraska-Lincoln, probably view schools like GVSU or UNO in the same way that we view Mayville St. or Mary. Hell, Michigan and Michigan St. fans look down their noses at the MAC schools fans, and in turn, the MAC school fans try to look down their noses at GVSU. Kinda hard for them when they're losing the local recuiting battles to GVSU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.