Erictelevision
All American
Posts: 3,267
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 52
I Root For: Uconn hoops
Location:
|
"Non-revenue" vs "Olympic"
I'm used to the former term, but have seen the latter here exclusively. Is that because of the negative connotation of "non-revenue"?
|
|
03-12-2016 05:03 PM |
|
omniorange
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10,144
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
|
RE: "Non-revenue" vs "Olympic"
(03-12-2016 05:03 PM)Erictelevision Wrote: I'm used to the former term, but have seen the latter here exclusively. Is that because of the negative connotation of "non-revenue"?
I would think yes. I suspect women's bb makes revenue for some (e.g. UConn and South Carolina), while men's lacrosse makes revenue for Syracuse and I would imagine men's baseball and men's hockey for more than a couple just don't know off the top of my head.
Of course not sure all of the so-called olympic sports are truly olympic either.
Cheers,
Neil
|
|
03-12-2016 05:11 PM |
|
ken d
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17,490
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1226
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
|
RE: "Non-revenue" vs "Olympic"
(03-12-2016 05:11 PM)omniorange Wrote: (03-12-2016 05:03 PM)Erictelevision Wrote: I'm used to the former term, but have seen the latter here exclusively. Is that because of the negative connotation of "non-revenue"?
I would think yes. I suspect women's bb makes revenue for some (e.g. UConn and South Carolina), while men's lacrosse makes revenue for Syracuse and I would imagine men's baseball and men's hockey for more than a couple just don't know off the top of my head.
Of course not sure all of the so-called olympic sports are truly olympic either.
Cheers,
Neil
I'd be surprised if anybody besides UConn is making a profit on women'e bball. For most major college teams, women's hoops are probably the biggest money loser of all sports.
|
|
03-12-2016 05:20 PM |
|
omniorange
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10,144
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
|
RE: "Non-revenue" vs "Olympic"
(03-12-2016 05:20 PM)ken d Wrote: (03-12-2016 05:11 PM)omniorange Wrote: (03-12-2016 05:03 PM)Erictelevision Wrote: I'm used to the former term, but have seen the latter here exclusively. Is that because of the negative connotation of "non-revenue"?
I would think yes. I suspect women's bb makes revenue for some (e.g. UConn and South Carolina), while men's lacrosse makes revenue for Syracuse and I would imagine men's baseball and men's hockey for more than a couple just don't know off the top of my head.
Of course not sure all of the so-called olympic sports are truly olympic either.
Cheers,
Neil
I'd be surprised if anybody besides UConn is making a profit on women'e bball. For most major college teams, women's hoops are probably the biggest money loser of all sports.
I suspect that those women's bb teams who average 7K plus in attendance make some money on the sport. Outside of UConn, according to the OPE site last year ND reported making $4.5 million in revenue, Iowa State $3.5 million, and Louisville just under $3 million.
I believe it is also the most televised college sport after football and men's bb. And outside of schollies, it would be hard to imagine that the sport carries with it a lot of expenses since mostly everything is already in place on campus.
But still agree that it is not a "revenue" sport for most, mainly due to attendance figures which for most schools is ridiculously low.
Cheers,
Neil
|
|
03-12-2016 05:38 PM |
|
HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine
The Black Knight of The Deplorables
Posts: 9,618
Joined: Oct 2013
I Root For: Army, SFU
Location: Michie Stadium 1945
|
RE: "Non-revenue" vs "Olympic"
They use Olympic for the same reason garbagemen are called sanitation engineers. It sounds more professional.
|
|
03-12-2016 05:47 PM |
|
Erictelevision
All American
Posts: 3,267
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 52
I Root For: Uconn hoops
Location:
|
RE: "Non-revenue" vs "Olympic"
(03-12-2016 05:47 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote: They use Olympic for the same reason garbagemen are called sanitation engineers. It sounds more professional.
That is exactly what I assumed. :)
|
|
03-12-2016 05:59 PM |
|
johnbragg
Five Minute Google Expert
Posts: 16,449
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 1014
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
|
RE: "Non-revenue" vs "Olympic"
Maybe I'm wrong, but when I hear/read "Olympic sports", I include men's basketball. They play basketball in the Olympics, after all. The nice thing about having different terms is that they cover different things.
Olympic = all college sports except football, hockey
Non-revenue = all sports except football, men's basketball, some hockey programs. Varies somewhat from school to school--some places might make a few nickels on baseball or wrestling or lacrosse. Non-revenue sports are the ones that only exist to meet Division I or FBS or Title IX requirements, or because of a philosophy that more athletics is just good in general.
Maybe that's an old hybrid Big East legacy?
|
|
03-12-2016 06:30 PM |
|
Erictelevision
All American
Posts: 3,267
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 52
I Root For: Uconn hoops
Location:
|
RE: "Non-revenue" vs "Olympic"
John: I semi-agree with your 3rd guess. To me the non-revenue sports include:
Field Hockey
Ice Hockey
Lacrosse
Golf
Swimming & Diving
Tennis
XC/Track
Softball
Volleyball
Baseball
IOW: any sport without a significant pro prescence OR it has an official minor league system.
|
|
03-12-2016 06:35 PM |
|
Captain Bearcat
All-American in Everything
Posts: 9,512
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 768
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
|
RE: "Non-revenue" vs "Olympic"
(03-12-2016 05:38 PM)omniorange Wrote: (03-12-2016 05:20 PM)ken d Wrote: (03-12-2016 05:11 PM)omniorange Wrote: (03-12-2016 05:03 PM)Erictelevision Wrote: I'm used to the former term, but have seen the latter here exclusively. Is that because of the negative connotation of "non-revenue"?
I would think yes. I suspect women's bb makes revenue for some (e.g. UConn and South Carolina), while men's lacrosse makes revenue for Syracuse and I would imagine men's baseball and men's hockey for more than a couple just don't know off the top of my head.
Of course not sure all of the so-called olympic sports are truly olympic either.
Cheers,
Neil
I'd be surprised if anybody besides UConn is making a profit on women'e bball. For most major college teams, women's hoops are probably the biggest money loser of all sports.
I suspect that those women's bb teams who average 7K plus in attendance make some money on the sport. Outside of UConn, according to the OPE site last year ND reported making $4.5 million in revenue, Iowa State $3.5 million, and Louisville just under $3 million.
I believe it is also the most televised college sport after football and men's bb. And outside of schollies, it would be hard to imagine that the sport carries with it a lot of expenses since mostly everything is already in place on campus.
But still agree that it is not a "revenue" sport for most, mainly due to attendance figures which for most schools is ridiculously low.
Cheers,
Neil
I can't imagine that an average women's bb program would cost more than $1 million a year to run:
150k - head coach
180k - 3 assistant coaches
150k - Travel (20 people * $500 * 15 away games, probably high)
520k - scholarships (13 * 40k)
Assuming $20 per fan (which is probably low after parking and concessions are included), any school with over 50,000 fans per year is breaking even. There's about 40 schools at that level. It would seem that 20-30 schools probably make a profit from WBB.
|
|
03-13-2016 12:29 AM |
|
BruceMcF
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13,249
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 791
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
|
RE: "Non-revenue" vs "Olympic"
Yes "Olympic sports" is a (oftimes not entirely accurate) shorthand to refer to sports other than FB, since the three-way division of Division 1 means that some conferences are all-sports conferences including FB and some are "all sports except for FB" conferences.
As far as additional sports which are surplus generating at some schools, there are certainly some, though on the other hand, a full accounting of costs would also include a user cost for facilities, and while some rely on facilities built with fund raising driven by those sports, some rely on facilities built on the back of fundraising for FB and Men's BBall.
So part of the status of the two "revenue" sports is that they don't merely earn an operating surplus, but are also often primary drivers for facilities fund raising and their surpluses are sufficient to both maintain a big chunk of the costs of the operating costs of the subsidy sports and to drive coaching salaries arm races.
Rather than fight a semantic battle over sports that require no subsidy help from FB or Men's Bball, I prefer to break down the "non-revenue" sports into a "breakeven" and "subsidy" sports ... recognizing that in many cases a sport may be a break-even sport for one school and a subsidy sport for another school. And, of course, due to facilities and coaching arms races in FB and BBall, for many programs one, the other or both require subsidy of some sort from the institution. So Lacrosse in the ACC, Ice Hockey at some of the Big Ten Hockey schools, Women's BBall at a number of the elite and relatively well-supported Women's BBall programs, etc.
(This post was last modified: 03-13-2016 03:43 AM by BruceMcF.)
|
|
03-13-2016 03:40 AM |
|
MJG
1st String
Posts: 2,278
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 30
I Root For: U I , UMich, SC
Location: Myrtle Beach
|
RE: "Non-revenue" vs "Olympic"
I read somewhere almost all college hockey programs make money.
FCOA attendance should be tied to revenue if the sport makes money offer it otherwise no.
|
|
03-13-2016 11:06 AM |
|