PonyFans.com

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011 ... rence-usa/

Apparently we somehow have a larger revenue than anyone in our conference. Interestng how our revenue and costs match.

We are private and don't have to release this data...very possible this is made up...we don't make money or even break even in athletics...

NickSMU17 wrote:We are private and don't have to release this data...very possible this is made up...we don't make money or even break even in athletics...

Good point, find it highly unlikely we would spend "exactly" the same amount as we generate.

This is very simple...the data that we do have to report to the Department of Education can be manipulated in any number of ways. SMU, along with many other universities in the country, chooses to report revenues and expenses in a manner where each sport seems to break even.

Non-standard accounting practices have led to these reports meaning absolutely nothing.

CalallenStang wrote:This is very simple...
Non-standard accounting practices have led to these reports meaning absolutely nothing.

Absolutely right, my accounting for "non-profits" is way out of date, but as I remember it was basically a cash sources and uses statement, where transfers, investment income and donations appear as though they are revenue items.

Without seeing the breakout of numbers and ledger entries, my gut call is that SMU portions a percentage of tuition fees to the Athletic Department. The Athletic Department portions the funds so each program is break even. Any funds over Break Even get segregated to capital improvements or some other endowment fund. On the other hand the University could also reduce their cash distribution to the Athletic Department.

This last method would be another control mechanism over the program so we do have any issues like we did in the 80s.

Orsini used to be an accountant....I bet that helps a little

I'm not going to tell you that the numbers don't break even, but you have to ask yourself how they break even - by increasing expedenditures as revenue rises, or by lowering expenditures as revenue rises.

I was talking to Rick Alonzo about 7 or 8 years ago and he said the university had cut what were considered to be basic aspects of the gameday experience (Don't ask me what they were, I'm sorry I don't remember). So while the numbers may work out on paper, that doesn't mean that it's healthy, and despite our improvements I can't see us being that much better.

How does merchandising fit into this? I would suspect there is an uptick in SMU items sold. The university gets something for that. Is that uptick due to our great Organic lab or our bowl appearances?

Organic lab!! Are you eating dog again?

mrydel wrote:Organic lab!! Are you eating dog again?

Dang site won';t let me log in as me (same problem you experienced on one of our road trips)

I am not into dogs. I love kitty tacos though.

Stlhockeyguy02 wrote:

NickSMU17 wrote:We are private and don't have to release this data...very possible this is made up...we don't make money or even break even in athletics...

Good point, find it highly unlikely we would spend "exactly" the same amount as we generate.

Maybe SMU counts the donatations, that are designated for the Athletic Department, as revenue to make up for the deficit. I understand since SMU is private they do not have to make these reports available to anyone. Can anyone clarify?

mrydel wrote:Organic lab!! Are you eating dog again?

That would be a good name for a band.

This report shows how the rich get richer in the NCAA, especially with the BCS BS.