Technically both sides are correct, it's all in how you split hairs and count.

I'm assuming it's all in how you look at where certain funds came from and what they were spent on.  Whether or not you count private funds as revenue or if you count spending them on the bowl against the gross etc.  Also, how you count money that goes back into the University system.  For instance, did Athletics spend money by housing the Athletes on campus?  Probably, but a lot of that money was re-circulated back into the University, so how much did the University actually spend?  Just my assumption at least.

Here you go according to numbers reported in Arkley's that quotes Schaus on Saturday.

Revenue

$300,000 MAC bowl pool
$15,880 tickets sold

$315,880 total

Expenses

$412,525.76 house, feed, send team to New Orleans
$68,175.89 house, feed, transport team on campus
$48,645 student involvement in game
$5,542 coaches families

$534,888.65 total

bobcat695 wrote:

I am not sure of the exact numbers, but I am pretty sure some numbers are being left out.  Wouldn't the money from Student Senate ($60,000 or so) have to go on the revenue side if the student expenses are on the liability side?  I am not trying to start a fight over this, nor do I want a line item expense report, but if Jim Schaus is going to report we broke even, there should be a full documentation of it somewhere.  I have to believe those numbers were right before athletics released the information stating it was a break even.  Otherwise, it is a huge PR mistake.

Yes the shortfall in revenue vs. expenses was made up with student fees from various sources (student senate, office of student life, athletics student fee reserve fund) and yes those amounts were budgeted.  However, we spent $199,000 more than we took in and that represents a loss in any accountant's book.

I just doubled checked the Messenger article and those numbers came right from there.  One set of numbers that is missing is the amount it cost to send the band.  That amount was covered by student senate which gets it's money from student fees.

DublinCat - Not sure if you were trying to be funny but you made me laugh out loud. Thanks I needed that at 5:00

I realize this was tongue in cheek, but doesn't the NCAA cover all of each teams' travel expenses once they qualify for a national tournament? I'm pretty sure the only sport where schools lose hundreds of thousands of dollars for post-season competition is college football and its fraudulent bowl system.

Exactly. 

Ok... so what's the issue?  If the department planned well, then what else are they supposed to do?  They can't just print money.

I don't understand what the issue is with the money that was already budgeted.  If I understand it correctly, the department put away a certain amount of $$ in case there were extra expenses associated with post-season play. And they used that money.   The money was there to be spent and it was spent.  No money was "lost"... they didn't put it on a Credit Card or run to a pay-day loan shark... How is this a bad thing?  

Also... today's front page of The Post is just another in a long long line of ridiculous headlines.  "Bowl Budget Breaks Bank!"... followed by a lot of numbers...  The actual important figures "Expenses vs. Revenue" are hidden at the bottom.  The articles are actually fair... but all of that is lost by the false headline...  

I'm waiting for an article tomorrow entitled....  "Faculty salary breaks the bank!" Because under this logic of "If you have money in your budget and you spend it... you're breaking the bank" any single budgeted expense on the university books is a loss...

I don't understand the number either. The only thing I can think of is that is the net number. So Ohio sells 1,397. But then gives away 500 to students, 300 to the band and 200 to parents. So they bought 2,397 from the Bowl and only got revenue for 1,397. So they netted revenue for 397. Dunno.

I've gone to enough away games during the last 4-5 years to know that the OU following other than family of the players is not too large, but 397 tickets? sold.  I figured that we sold 1000 or so anyway, but 397. Ouch.  The more I think about how often the OU crowd (?) has been small, maybe I shouldn't be surprised about this turnout.  Other than this years' OSU game, I think NW a few years back had the most OU fans there.  Maybe it is all about who we play.   I must be in the minority-I go to see OU play and don't care so much about who we play.

So Temple made $300,000 by not being picked for a game.  Would it not make sense for the Conference to collect all money the conference makes for making bowl games.  Cover costs for the teams heading to bowls and then take the remaining dollars and spread them evenly across the members?  And sense it makes sense I am sure there is a dumb reason it is not done.

[DISCLAIMER: I have not read any information on this subject other than what is posted on this board, so take my comments with this perspective in mind.]

My issue is simply that I want to hear the truth.  I'm not suggesting that any of Ohio's athletic programs make money or break even.  I understand this to be the reality and am not making an argument whether it's good or bad to continue to fund them.

All I am suggesting is that if the revenue from the bowl game is less than the expenses, state that as such.  And if you want, you can say "We budgeted for that shortfall and are using money from X to make up the difference."  The fact is, if they did not make a bowl game, the money that was used to make up the difference could have been used elsewhere.

Please also note that I understand that the effect of being on national TV, and all of the other "intangibles" are not accounted for in this situation.  If they wanted to say that "The exposure we got and [all these other intaglibles] were valued at $Y and we feel we broke even" I would let it slide.  I could argue with how they got to value $Y, but at least they would be making an honest argument.

Let's say I open a lemonade stand and it costs me $20.  I only make $15 from selling lemonade.  I've got another $5 in my pocket that I was going to buy lunch with, but instead I put it in with the lemonade sales money so now I've got $20 in the lemonade drawer.  Did I break even on the lemonade stand?  No.  Were my expenses covered because I had other money?  Yes.