The 2012 financial report is a big story.

[GoSU96]

Not all schools are current with their reporting, but based on the partial numbers there was an enormous unexplained injection of cash to the SU athletics department.

Year over year growth in revenues of 42.5% from $51.4M to $73.3M. Expenditures also went from $50M to $69M. The only thing that makes sense is a capital project, but there isn't a huge unallocated expense line.

L'ville, Uconn, and Pitt all saw little to no growth, so there was a huge distribution from the BE that nobody knew about. Rutgers is up 20% but also showing $21M in unallocated revenue and a $0 margin, and based on past information they took funding from the school and the state to cover their expenses.

 

[FAL]

Nancy and Daryl told me they would keep my contribution hush-hush. See if I give them any more next year!!!!

 

[oldpinepoint]

Must be the increased football season ticket holder sales

 

[dollarbill44]

Could it be that they showed all of the Meadowlands revenue this year even though most of it will be earned in future periods? I'm not an accountant, but I know there are different rules for non-profits.

 

[Timonen]

Year over year growth in revenues of 42.5% from $51.4M to $73.3M. Expenditures also went from $50M to $69M. The only thing that makes sense is a capital project, but there isn't a huge unallocated expense line.

is borrowed money counted as revenue since it would need to be accounted for in expenditures?

 

[GoSU96]

Year over year growth in revenues of 42.5% from $51.4M to $73.3M. Expenditures also went from $50M to $69M. The only thing that makes sense is a capital project, but there isn't a huge unallocated expense line.

is borrowed money counted as revenue since it would need to be accounted for in expenditures?

It would be, but borrowed for what?

 

[javadoc]

Not all schools are current with their reporting, but based on the partial numbers there was an enormous unexplained injection of cash to the SU athletics department.

Year over year growth in revenues of 42.5% from $51.4M to $73.3M. Expenditures also went from $50M to $69M. The only thing that makes sense is a capital project, but there isn't a huge unallocated expense line.

L'ville, Uconn, and Pitt all saw little to no growth, so there was a huge distribution from the BE that nobody knew about. Rutgers is up 20% but also showing $21M in unallocated revenue and a $0 margin, and based on past information they took funding from the school and the state to cover their expenses.

Maybe there is some media rights stream that Dr Gross has tapped into that we haven't heard much about?

While I agree that the numbers are not fully bomb-proof (the bit about "breaking even = general fund covered losses" is well known), the expenditures side should be reliable. The last time I crunched these numbers I think I read that they were the official numbers used to determine Title IX compliance. Screw that up and you could be in a heap-a trubble.

 

[texascpa]

Could it be that they showed all of the Meadowlands revenue this year even though most of it will be earned in future periods? I'm not an accountant, but I know there are different rules for non-profits.

Unless it's donations, unearned revenue is treated the same as for-profits - recognized as earned. So, in the case of Meadowlands revenue, it would be treated as a liability until used.

 

[TampaLaker]

Unless it's donations, unearned revenue is treated the same as for-profits - recognized as earned. So, in the case of Meadowlands revenue, it would be treated as a liability until used.

By the way thanks for your help on my paper. Pulled an A

 

[texascpa]

By the way thanks for your help on my paper. Pulled an A

Awesome. Was a pleasure.

 

[MadNY3]

Not all schools are current with their reporting, but based on the partial numbers there was an enormous unexplained injection of cash to the SU athletics department.

Year over year growth in revenues of 42.5% from $51.4M to $73.3M. Expenditures also went from $50M to $69M. The only thing that makes sense is a capital project, but there isn't a huge unallocated expense line.

L'ville, Uconn, and Pitt all saw little to no growth, so there was a huge distribution from the BE that nobody knew about. Rutgers is up 20% but also showing $21M in unallocated revenue and a $0 margin, and based on past information they took funding from the school and the state to cover their expenses.

Not all schools are current with their reporting, but based on the partial numbers there was an enormous unexplained injection of cash to the SU athletics department.

Year over year growth in revenues of 42.5% from $51.4M to $73.3M. Expenditures also went from $50M to $69M. The only thing that makes sense is a capital project, but there isn't a huge unallocated expense line.

L'ville, Uconn, and Pitt all saw little to no growth, so there was a huge distribution from the BE that nobody knew about. Rutgers is up 20% but also showing $21M in unallocated revenue and a $0 margin, and based on past information they took funding from the school and the state to cover their expenses.

Would the general fund reallocate money to cover Big East exit fees, increased legal due to Bernie, etc?

 

[Millhouse]

Not all schools are current with their reporting, but based on the partial numbers there was an enormous unexplained injection of cash to the SU athletics department.

Year over year growth in revenues of 42.5% from $51.4M to $73.3M. Expenditures also went from $50M to $69M. The only thing that makes sense is a capital project, but there isn't a huge unallocated expense line.

L'ville, Uconn, and Pitt all saw little to no growth, so there was a huge distribution from the BE that nobody knew about. Rutgers is up 20% but also showing $21M in unallocated revenue and a $0 margin, and based on past information they took funding from the school and the state to cover their expenses.

i just don't believe any of the numbers colleges put out there. and i think our AD office is very sloppy. i hope it's good news

 

[Orangepace]

Unless it's donations, unearned revenue is treated the same as for-profits - recognized as earned. So, in the case of Meadowlands revenue, it would be treated as a liability until used.

Only if they actually received the cash.. I can't imagine the Meadowlands gave us an advance on the future games..

 

[texascpa]

Only if they actually received the cash.. I can't imagine the Meadowlands gave us an advance on the future games..

Agreed that I'm sure the Meadowlands didn't advance the cash, but that doesn't stop SU from debiting a Receivable (based on a signed contract) and crediting a liability for the unearned revenue. If they're using accrual basis accounting, which I expect a nonprofit of their size is using, then they should have recorded like this.

Either way, the Meadowland contract should not be fully counted in the current Revenue number. Something else is driving the increase.

 

[OrangePA]

Agreed that I'm sure the Meadowlands didn't advance the cash, but that doesn't stop SU from debiting a Receivable (based on a signed contract) and crediting a liability for the unearned revenue. If they're using accrual basis accounting, which I expect a nonprofit of their size is using, then they should have recorded like this.

Either way, the Meadowland contract should not be fully counted in the current Revenue number. Something else is driving the increase.

Why is it booked as a liability?

Isn't it mark to market

 

[oldpinepoint]

I could be wrong but if you take money for services not rendered its a liability until the revenue is recognized, mainly because hypothetically speaking SU could not perform their duty to earn the revenue and would owe the money back. Probably not worded correctly but the general idea in my mind.

 

[Bortukal]

Considering that SU closed out a $1 billion fundraising campaign this past year, isn't it likely that a portion of those pledges were earmarked by the donors specifically for athletics?

 

[GoSU96]

Considering that SU closed out a $1 billion fundraising campaign this past year, isn't it likely that a portion of those pledges were earmarked by the donors specifically for athletics?

That is probably the likely, and that's why I think it's a big story, the AD has not had success in the past pulling in those kinds of dollars, and as far as I know has been reported on.

 

[Orangello]

I could be wrong but if you take money for services not rendered its a liability until the revenue is recognized, mainly because hypothetically speaking SU could not perform their duty to earn the revenue and would owe the money back. Probably not worded correctly but the general idea in my mind.

This^^^^^^

 

[texascpa]

Why is it booked as a liability?

Isn't it mark to market

If it's a contract with specific year payouts, mark to market shouldn't come in to play, I wouldn't think. It's a liability because you are obligated for the services related to that revenue (regardless if it's cash or an accounts receivable).

I should caveat all of this by stating I do not currently work in nonprofit accounting and when I did it was for a small organization that used cash basis accounting. I am making the assumption that SU uses accrual basis, the contract terms are known and signed, and there is a reasonable expectation that the contract will be satisfied by both sides (hence the receivable setup and the corresponding liability). As cash is received, the receivable is reduced, cash is increased, unearned revenue liability is reduced and revenue is increased.

Please correct me if this is inaccurate. I don't want to lead anyone down the wrong road.

 

[javadoc]

That is probably the likely, and that's why I think it's a big story, the AD has not had success in the past pulling in those kinds of dollars, and as far as I know has been reported on.

So what about the expenditures side? Should we assume that much of the increase is for the facilities projects?

 

[oldpinepoint]

So what about the expenditures side? Should we assume that much of the increase is for the facilities projects?

Can really assume anything, who knows what it will be used for. General operating, facilities, my bar tab at club 44, etc

 

[cliftonparksufan]

If it's a contract with specific year payouts, mark to market shouldn't come in to play, I wouldn't think. It's a liability because you are obligated for the services related to that revenue (regardless if it's cash or an accounts receivable).

I should caveat all of this by stating I do not currently work in nonprofit accounting and when I did it was for a small organization that used cash basis accounting. I am making the assumption that SU uses accrual basis, the contract terms are known and signed, and there is a reasonable expectation that the contract will be satisfied by both sides (hence the receivable setup and the corresponding liability). As cash is received, the receivable is reduced, cash is increased, unearned revenue liability is reduced and revenue is increased.

Please correct me if this is inaccurate. I don't want to lead anyone down the wrong road.

I could be wrong also, but it's very similar to how retailers report their income from gift card sales. They collect the money up front but report it as a liability since they still owe the customer product in exchange for that money. Something like that.

 

[javadoc]

Can really assume anything, who knows what it will be used for. General operating, facilities, my bar tab at club 44, etc

Forgive me, as accounting doesn't quite make transparent sense to me. According to the OP, our expenditures went up by $19M. Were those real, or some Sci-Fi "paper" expenditures?

 

[texascpa]

Forgive me, as accounting doesn't quite make transparent sense to me. According to the OP, our expenditures went up by $19M. Were those real, or some Sci-Fi "paper" expenditures?

Again, it depends on how they manage their accounting - Is it cash basis (realized) or accrual basis (recognized). I'm assuming that it's accrual basis and the $19M represents incurred expenses, whether they've been paid or not.