Football Attendance for 2012

[bobbyake]

We probably all agree that both the fan support for, and performance level of, UA football are currently depressing.

We might disagree on whether our best experience was attending the Motor City Bowl to watch UA play against Memphis or attending the MAC championship game and witnessing that magical last second TD pass from Getsy to Hixon that got the Zips to that Motor City Bowl. I was fortunate enough to attend both, and they were both great experiences.

We probably all agree that we want the opportunity to savor both of those experiences again.

the game winning fieldgoal against Marshall was a great experience as well.

Sad truth is, I believe next year will be just as bad if not worse than this year.

[Doug Snyder]

We probably all agree that both the fan support for, and performance level of, UA football are currently depressing.

We might disagree on whether our best experience was attending the Motor City Bowl to watch UA play against Memphis or attending the MAC championship game and witnessing that magical last second TD pass from Getsy to Hixon that got the Zips to that Motor City Bowl. I was fortunate enough to attend both, and they were both great experiences.

We probably all agree that we want the opportunity to savor both of those experiences again.

the game winning fieldgoal against Marshall was a great experience as well.

Sad truth is, I believe next year will be just as bad if not worse than this year.

Let's be honest....you predicted they will be 1-11 this year. If they finish by winning 5 games this year...I believe ICoach will have more credibility as a coach than you will have as a prognosticator. We will soon find out about this year. Stay tuned.

Bobbyake:

1-11

iCantCoach was a huge mistake and we'll suffer for it over the next few years.

[Zipmeister]

We could see the worst attendance for a Can't/Akron game ever this year. Both programs are garbage right now and the game is on November 12. If we go with non-phantom numbers, maybe 6,000 show up. Like I said, I could start going around the stadium during the game taking pictures of each section to provide an accurate estimate, but I think comparing this year's actual to last years fictional numbers is a waste.

As far as phantom attendance for soccer games, I'd be willing to bet that at least 96% of the attendance is real. I'd bet that more than 50% of football's attendance is phantoms.

As I've said before, if this so-called "phantom attendance" was an acceptable practice, EMU wouldn't be reporting 5,000 average attendance for football.

The NCAA allows each school to determine its own method of calculating attendance.

EMU may be reporting only fans in the seats, which is really the only honest way to do it.

As long as it consistent...I could care less. I really don't think attendance figures should be a criteria for D1. Miami Florida draws poorly...but they had great teams. Small school in a upscale enclave surrounded by poor depressed areas predominantly Hispanic (not the right style of futbol) keeps their attendance figures low. Who cares...if the school wants to compete at that level and they can compete...why should there be attendance requirements??

We should have their attendance problems.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/foo...ttendance_N.htm

P.S. between 2005 and 2009, at least, I wouldn't classify their team as "great."

[MaxZIP]

We could see the worst attendance for a Can't/Akron game ever this year. Both programs are garbage right now and the game is on November 12. If we go with non-phantom numbers, maybe 6,000 show up. Like I said, I could start going around the stadium during the game taking pictures of each section to provide an accurate estimate, but I think comparing this year's actual to last years fictional numbers is a waste.

As far as phantom attendance for soccer games, I'd be willing to bet that at least 96% of the attendance is real. I'd bet that more than 50% of football's attendance is phantoms.

As I've said before, if this so-called "phantom attendance" was an acceptable practice, EMU wouldn't be reporting 5,000 average attendance for football.

Were you there? Maybe they double not triple their real numbers. It is pretty slim up in Michigan as well.

[skip-zip]

We could see the worst attendance for a Can't/Akron game ever this year. Both programs are garbage right now and the game is on November 12. If we go with non-phantom numbers, maybe 6,000 show up. Like I said, I could start going around the stadium during the game taking pictures of each section to provide an accurate estimate, but I think comparing this year's actual to last years fictional numbers is a waste.

As far as phantom attendance for soccer games, I'd be willing to bet that at least 96% of the attendance is real. I'd bet that more than 50% of football's attendance is phantoms.

As I've said before, if this so-called "phantom attendance" was an acceptable practice, EMU wouldn't be reporting 5,000 average attendance for football.

Were you there? Maybe they double not triple their real numbers. It is pretty slim up in Michigan as well.

Because stating that they have 5,000 instead of 4,000 or 3,000 makes them look better? Or gets them any closer to meeting their minimum?

The point is, I'm sure ticket sales are not a "made up" number. If so, eveyrone would do it. And they are audited. How could you show X number of tickets sold, but not have the dollars to match it?

If someone truly has more additional inside info. on how the actual process works, please let us know. It would end some of this speculation that schools juet make up a number.

[Dave in Green]

As I stated earlier, if you announce more "official" paid attendance than you actually have and then try to claim a lower number on your tax form than you annnouce as "official," the IRS will be after you to pay on what you claimed as "official" plus penalties.

In this instance, you really can't have it both ways. The IRS really does check because it's a well-known scam for promoters to announce astronomical attendance numbers to inflate the importance of their events, and then claim as few paying customers as they can get away with on their tax returns in order to keep extra bucks in their pockets.

I can't imagine a state-supported university taking that kind of risk.

[Lee Adams]

We probably all agree that both the fan support for, and performance level of, UA football are currently depressing.

We might disagree on whether our best experience was attending the Motor City Bowl to watch UA play against Memphis or attending the MAC championship game and witnessing that magical last second TD pass from Getsy to Hixon that got the Zips to that Motor City Bowl. I was fortunate enough to attend both, and they were both great experiences.

We probably all agree that we want the opportunity to savor both of those experiences again.

the game winning fieldgoal against Marshall was a great experience as well.

Sad truth is, I believe next year will be just as bad if not worse than this year.

Gotta admit I enjoyed the Blizzard Bowl against Can't in '05 too. That was the best stretch of Akron football since the DII playoffs in '76.

[Zipmeister]

As I stated earlier, if you announce more "official" paid attendance than you actually have and then try to claim a lower number on your tax form than you annnouce as "official," the IRS will be after you to pay on what you claimed as "official" plus penalties.

In this instance, you really can't have it both ways. The IRS really does check because it's a well-known scam for promoters to announce astronomical attendance numbers to inflate the importance of their events, and then claim as few paying customers as they can get away with on their tax returns in order to keep extra bucks in their pockets.

I can't imagine a state-supported university taking that kind of risk.

Yes, the IRS spends massive amounts of time auditing these kinds of numbers for tax-exempt organizations.

[Dave in Green]

@Zipmeister, don't kid yourself that the tax exempt status of college athletics isn't under close scrutiny right now. It's not a good time to be reporting false paid attendance numbers.

Should America tax university sports?

IRS Colleges and Universities Compliance Project

[Zipmeister]

@Zipmeister, don't kid yourself that the tax exempt status of college athletics isn't under close scrutiny right now. It's not a good time to be reporting false paid attendance numbers.

Should America tax university sports?

IRS Colleges and Universities Compliance Project

Don't kid myself! I'm not the one that thinks the IRS audits tax exempt entities.

[Dave in Green]

@Zipmeister, you're right. I jumped the gun on tax exempt universities being audited by the IRS on sports revenue. It hasn't happened yet. It's only a proposal under study. Maybe it won't happen. Maybe universities can say anything they want about paid attendance without worrying about the IRS.

How would you play it if you were the UA executive in charge of responding to the IRS on their request for data pertaining to the Colleges and Universities Compliance Project?

[Zipmeister]

@Zipmeister, you're right. I jumped the gun on tax exempt universities being audited by the IRS on sports revenue. It hasn't happened yet. It's only a proposal under study. Maybe it won't happen. Maybe universities can say anything they want about paid attendance without worrying about the IRS.

How would you play it if you were the UA executive in charge of responding to the IRS on their request for data pertaining to the Colleges and Universities Compliance Project?

It takes a big man to admit he was wrong. Thank you for finally admitting that your reason why Universities couldn't possibly fudge their football attendance numbers up was a fabrication.

If I was the executive in charge of responding to this type of request I would give it to my administrative assistant to complete. Of course (primarily to please you) I would attach a hand written note to the completed form asking why there wasn't a single question on the 33 page document asking how many football tickets we sold.

[Dave in Green]

@Zipmeister, if it takes a big man to admit he was wrong, I must be a true giant, as I freely admit that I make lots of mistakes. Heck, I'll admit I was mistaken in thinking that Zipmeister only did slapstick comedy when it's obvious now that you've also mastered the Don Rickles style. Kudos.

Here's where I believe I'm not mistaken:

Colleges and universities have been under scrutiny for many years for how they take in money and how they use it, including the highly visible and lucrative business of college sports. The IRS has been actively involved in this scrutiny for more than three years now, and the Colleges and Universities Compliance Project is the shot across the bow warning schools to get their books in order.

While you are correct that there is no question in the compliance questionnaire singling out official football paid attendance (ticket sales), that would be included in broader revenue questions, to include athletics. As we all know, the IRS always reserves the right to request itemized details at a later date, and they'd better add up.

If I was the executive in charge of responding to this type of request, I would make darn sure that all the numbers were accurate and could be backed up by itemized details before I sent it back to the IRS under my name. There's a generally grumpy mood in the air about universities spending and generating lots of potentially taxable cash in areas not directly related to education, such as athletics.

As I said earlier, it's not a good time to be reporting false paid attendance numbers. But maybe you can help lighten that grumpy mood with some good IRS humor.

[Doug Snyder]

@Zipmeister, you're right. I jumped the gun on tax exempt universities being audited by the IRS on sports revenue. It hasn't happened yet. It's only a proposal under study. Maybe it won't happen. Maybe universities can say anything they want about paid attendance without worrying about the IRS.

How would you play it if you were the UA executive in charge of responding to the IRS on their request for data pertaining to the Colleges and Universities Compliance Project?

It takes a big man to admit he was wrong. Thank you for finally admitting that your reason why Universities couldn't possibly fudge their football attendance numbers up was a fabrication.

Are you suggesting DIG lied to make his point?? Don't you think that is a bit strong??

fab·ri·ca·tion   /ˌfæbrɪˈkeɪʃən/ Show Spelled[fab-ri-key-shuhn] Show IPA

noun

1. the act or process of fabricating; manufacture.

2. something fabricated, especially an untruthful statement

[Dave in Green]

@Doug Snyder, I'm sure that was just part of Zipmeister's Rickles routine. Humor can be deceiving.

[bobbyake]

from my understanding, they are allowed to count tickets given through endorsement deals. For example, First Merit gets a certain amount of tickets for games, I think it's close to 1,000. I remember reading an article about their donation and that it came with a big allotment of tickets. Infocision and Summa would get the same deal. Regardless of whether those tickets are used. they're considered paid for.

[Zipmeister]

Sorry if I sounded a little harsh in my previous emails. You realize some of the folks on here who haven't been around all that long might have thought your argument actually made sense, and that would not be a good thing.

OK, let's ignore the current reality, jump into our time machines and visit your future; a point in time where Congress has decided that all public universities are no longer tax exempt (which will not happen in your lifetime). Then, as now, the IRS could care less how many tickets were sold to a sporting (or entertainment) event. What they will want are truthful statements of revenues and expenses. The NCAA, on the other hand, doesn't require minimum revenue or income figures to maintain DI status, they specify minimum attendance figures. TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS. Therefore, a university could (continue to) lie their ass off regarding attendance and be in no difficulty at all with the IRS as long as the $ they include on their return are accurate. Hope this helps.

[Rockhopper Wallaroo]

Here's how the NCAA counts paid admission

"Tickets must be sold for at least one-third of the highest regular established ticket price as

established prior to the season, regardless of whether they are used for admission in order

to be used in calculating paid attendance figures. Tickets sold at less than one-third of the

highest regular established price may be counted as paid attendance only if they are used

for admission. Student attendance may be counted as paid attendance if the student pays at

least one-third of the highest regular established ticket price or, if the student actually

attends the game and any one of the following conditions applies:

1. The student paid an athletics fee;

2. The student paid an institutional fee of which a certain portion was allocated to the

department of athletics; or

3. The student paid no athletics fee, but the institution allocated to the department of

athletics a certain portion of tuition income or general operating funds as the

equivalent of a student athletics fee"

Source

[Zipmeister]

Here's how the NCAA counts paid admission

"Tickets must be sold for at least one-third of the highest regular established ticket price as

established prior to the season, regardless of whether they are used for admission in order

to be used in calculating paid attendance figures. Tickets sold at less than one-third of the

highest regular established price may be counted as paid attendance only if they are used

for admission. Student attendance may be counted as paid attendance if the student pays at

least one-third of the highest regular established ticket price or, if the student actually

attends the game and any one of the following conditions applies:

1. The student paid an athletics fee;

2. The student paid an institutional fee of which a certain portion was allocated to the

department of athletics; or

3. The student paid no athletics fee, but the institution allocated to the department of

athletics a certain portion of tuition income or general operating funds as the

equivalent of a student athletics fee"

Source

So if 1,2 or 3 applies, and a university has 25,000 students, paid attendance could be fudged up if someone accidentally counted the let's say 4,000 students who attended the game as 6,000 or 14,000 or 24,000. That probably never happens, especially by a school in danger of missing the minimum attendance figure.

[Dave in Green]

@Zipmeister, no problem on the harshness. By the way, your previous words were not in "emails," which are private communications, but in open posts on an internet forum. Harsh-sounding posts are pretty common on internet forums. Even the most civil posters can occasionally lapse into incivility if they get too wound up.

Considering your interest in seeing that folks on here are not misled by arguments that don't make sense, I'm sure you'll appreciate a clarification to your last post.

It's not necessary to get into a time machine to see the effects of colleges and universities not being considered tax exempt for certain areas of their business. Consider the following from the IRS:

Tax-exempt private and public universities and colleges are subject to unrelated business income tax (UBIT) and generally must pay tax on income from an activity, trade, or business that is not substantially related to their educational tax-exempt purposes.

That's the area where college athletics are vulnerable. In fact, the NCAA, which is nothing more than an athletic association created by and consisting of tax-exempt colleges and universities, has already run into this legal issue:

At issue in a dispute from Kansas was the meaning of an exemption for property that is for “educational use.” Litigation ensued when the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) created a corporation to manage the property where it located its headquarters. On further review of the reversal of the tax appeals board’s denial of the NCAA’s property tax-exempt status on the basis that the headquarters did not qualify as an “educational use,” the state’s highest court affirmed in favor of the NCAA (National Collegiate Realty v. Board of County Commissioners, 1984). The court applied a broad interpretation of the words “educational use” in upholding the exemption insofar as it acknowledged the NCAA’s role in assuring amateurism in intercollegiate sports.

They won that one under a "broad interpretation." But these days there is a lot of support to take a narrower interpretation. Thus, colleges and universities could easily maintain their general tax-exempt status while having their cash-rich athletic programs reclassified as not substantially related to their educational tax-exempt purposes, and thus ruled non-tax-exempt.

I would not dispute the possibility of your contention that taxpayer-supported educational institutions "could (continue to) lie their ass off" about paid sports event attendance. It could be done and it may be that it is being done, though I think it's not as likely as you seem to think it is. It would mean that these taxpayer-supported educational institutions are deliberately providing misleading information to their shareholders, i.e. taxpayers.

In that case, some taxpayers may wish for the IRS to go after their lying butts.

[Doug Snyder]

So if 1,2 or 3 applies, and a university has 25,000 students, paid attendance could be fudged up if someone accidentally counted the let's say 4,000 students who attended the game as 6,000 or 14,000 or 24,000. That probably never happens, especially by a school in danger of missing the minimum attendance figure.

Let me understand this. A University can go to someone who wants to donate $100,000 (or have part of some marketing campaign recorded as such) and have it recorded as a sale of 6,250 $8.00 season tickets and everything will be completely legal and OK with the NCAA. But you think they would rather lie about student attendance for which there would be no supporting documents. So instead of assuming college administrations are conniving, you prefer to assume they are corrupt and stupid. I probably have as little respect for government and the public sector as anyone and even I would not assume that.

It seems that you are more concerned about proving someone wrong than providing a convincing argument.

Like you, I don't think the IRS issue is that important for non-profit organization right now. But if you have ever dealt with the IRS or SEC you will know for sure that you want to avoid them. As you were referring too...IRS and SEC are public sector bureaucrats and like to use/abuse their authority. The IRS just cleared and issue with my company where they tried to collect 120K in civil penalties and interest. No apology...just a letter saying that we did not owe the money. That was a 2006 issue. So...they may not be important now....they ARE people to avoid. Ask any CFO.

[Zipmeister]

@Zipmeister, no problem on the harshness. By the way, your previous words were not in "emails," which are private communications, but in open posts on an internet forum. Harsh-sounding posts are pretty common on internet forums. Even the most civil posters can occasionally lapse into incivility if they get too wound up.

Considering your interest in seeing that folks on here are not misled by arguments that don't make sense, I'm sure you'll appreciate a clarification to your last post.

It's not necessary to get into a time machine to see the effects of colleges and universities not being considered tax exempt for certain areas of their business. Consider the following from the IRS:

Tax-exempt private and public universities and colleges are subject to unrelated business income tax (UBIT) and generally must pay tax on income from an activity, trade, or business that is not substantially related to their educational tax-exempt purposes.

That's the area where college athletics are vulnerable. In fact, the NCAA, which is nothing more than an athletic association created by and consisting of tax-exempt colleges and universities, has already run into this legal issue:

At issue in a dispute from Kansas was the meaning of an exemption for property that is for “educational use.” Litigation ensued when the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) created a corporation to manage the property where it located its headquarters. On further review of the reversal of the tax appeals board’s denial of the NCAA’s property tax-exempt status on the basis that the headquarters did not qualify as an “educational use,” the state’s highest court affirmed in favor of the NCAA (National Collegiate Realty v. Board of County Commissioners, 1984). The court applied a broad interpretation of the words “educational use” in upholding the exemption insofar as it acknowledged the NCAA’s role in assuring amateurism in intercollegiate sports.

They won that one under a "broad interpretation." But these days there is a lot of support to take a narrower interpretation. Thus, colleges and universities could easily maintain their general tax-exempt status while having their cash-rich athletic programs reclassified as not substantially related to their educational tax-exempt purposes, and thus ruled non-tax-exempt.

I would not dispute the possibility of your contention that taxpayer-supported educational institutions "could (continue to) lie their ass off" about paid sports event attendance. It could be done and it may be that it is being done, though I think it's not as likely as you seem to think it is. It would mean that these taxpayer-supported educational institutions are deliberately providing misleading information to their shareholders, i.e. taxpayers.

In that case, some taxpayers may wish for the IRS to go after their lying butts.

And the IRS would win in tax court because the school violated the provision in the tax code that specifies that paid attendance numbers must be reported according to NCAA specifications which, I forget, is in what section of the tax code? It hasn't occurred to you yet that perhaps the IRS isn't the correct institution to address this issue, has it?

[Dave in Green]

@Zipmeister, I'm quite aware of the fact that the IRS is not the correct institution to address this issue under current law. Nothing in my last few posts suggests that it is.

I'm also very clear on how the IRS would come into play should paid admissions to athletic events become classified as subject to unrelated business income tax for otherwise tax-exempt colleges and universities. It would be similar to the way the IRS currently deals with non-tax-exempt sporting event promoters.

Colleges and universities would submit their tax forms with a clear accounting of expenditures and income related to athletic events.

If the IRS believed everything was on the up and up, that would be the end of it.

If the IRS suspected hanky panky, they'd begin taking a closer look at the school's detailed financial records as well as such public information as NCAA rules for reporting paid attendance, publicly announced paid attendance, etc. Schools would have an easier time proving their case to the IRS if there were not conflicting numbers.

Hence, my original and continuing contention that any benefits of fudging publicly announced paid attendance numbers would be outweighed by the complications they might cause with audited tax returns.

[Zipmeister]

So if 1,2 or 3 applies, and a university has 25,000 students, paid attendance could be fudged up if someone accidentally counted the let's say 4,000 students who attended the game as 6,000 or 14,000 or 24,000. That probably never happens, especially by a school in danger of missing the minimum attendance figure.

Let me understand this. A University can go to someone who wants to donate $100,000 (or have part of some marketing campaign recorded as such) and have it recorded as a sale of 6,250 $8.00 season tickets and everything will be completely legal and OK with the NCAA. But you think they would rather lie about student attendance for which there would be no supporting documents. So instead of assuming college administrations are conniving, you prefer to assume they are corrupt and stupid. I probably have as little respect for government and the public sector as anyone and even I would not assume that.

It seems that you are more concerned about proving someone wrong than providing a convincing argument.

Like you, I don't think the IRS issue is that important for non-profit organization right now. But if you have ever dealt with the IRS or SEC you will know for sure that you want to avoid them. As you were referring too...IRS and SEC are public sector bureaucrats and like to use/abuse their authority. The IRS just cleared and issue with my company where they tried to collect 120K in civil penalties and interest. No apology...just a letter saying that we did not owe the money. That was a 2006 issue. So...they may not be important now....they ARE people to avoid. Ask any CFO.

I never said schools prefer to lie about student attendance at sporting events. It is simply one tool in their numbers fudging arsenal, and it happens with great regularity at schools struggling to stay qualified at the DI level (or by some hoping to appear to be a "bigger time" program than they actually are). It is particularly easy to make up supporting documents, if required, for this particular trick. Schools would prefer that someone give them cash that they can use to count as sold tickets. Using your example, kind of. Given a $100,000 donation, a school whose most expensive season tickets cost $24 (now that's a bargain) could pretend that they sold 12,500 season tickets at $8 per.

[Dave in Green]

@Zipmeister, we have some common ground here based on your response to Doug Snyder. I don't disagree with anything you said concerning schools following NCAA rules about reporting paid attendance.

I agree that some of these practices may appear deceptive to those who consider legitimate paid attendance to only include single ticket sales and not blocks of tickets. Of course, block ticket sales have always been a part of sporting events without a lot of people being aware of it. But it becomes more obvious to more people when large blocks of tickets are included in sponsorship packages, and few fans show up at games due to lack of interest in a losing team. Then there's a big and obvious gap between official paid attendance and actual butts in seats.

There would be no IRS problems for any non-tax-exempt organization reporting this on their tax return. It would only present a tax problem if the amount of money earned from paid ticket sales was underreported.