Portal vs HS recruiting how does it really affect things.

If less high school talent is being recruited at the top levels everyone is getting pushed down a notch. It can take time for the player reaching for a Top 50 program to accept he better grab the quality mid major offer. This funnel works it’s way right down the line to the kid holding out for D2 money deciding he better grab the D3 offer to help with admissions. While players are holding out hope for the higher level the recruiting coaches hope these players see the writing on the wall and come down to their level.

I would be interested in the average "years of service" for the college baseball player today versus 10 years ago.  I think 1) the portal is allowing the more efficient use of seasoned players, 2) MLB draft was reduced thereby increasing college ranks (i.e. more 4 yr players), and 3) the JUCO pipeline has become an avenue to more quickly restock with experienced players.  I don't think the number is huge, but I would not be surprised if the actual number of players is not down several percentage points.

As has been pointed out, the 2024 HS recruiting for many shcools appears to have been pushed out to allow the portal to settle down and folks to figure out what they still need - either because they could not snag what they needed or lost something the were counting on.  I think this certainly puts more pressure on the coming months.

Before 2008, players could transfer without sitting out a year.  Roster limits and scholarship rules were different too.  Check out some of the HSBBW discussions about how the sit rule was going to change everything:

https://community.hsbaseballwe...-updatepolk-concedes

https://community.hsbaseballwe...ng-just-dawned-on-me

Nope, not the same number of college slots. There are less college slots available now, significantly less.

3 things going on that I can see; 2 of them permanent

1- MLB draft rounds cut in half, to 20. That's 620 high quality players not drafted, or approx 18 teams worth (assuming 35 man roster) of players going into college instead of pro ball. Even if 20% of the draftees were from outside the US and another 10% go play somewhere besides college, that's still 13 teams worth of college players that wouldn't have been part of the NCAA prior to 2020. (And remember, the 2020 draft was only 5 rounds, which added an extra ~450 to the college ranks if they didn't all leave to play in Europe or the DR.) This is the biggest change and it's permanent.

2- transfer portal. Anyone can go anywhere now without penalty, so the there's incentive for the Top 25 to use lower-ranked D1 schools as their minor leagues...hey Paul Skenes. With bigger, stronger 20-23 year olds available from lower D1s/D2/D3/Juco/NAIA why recruit an 18 year old who's gonna take 2 years to contribute? Let those kids do a gap or PG year, or play at a Juco while they mature. This change is permanent.

3- covid extra year. 2024 will be the last full year of impact due to the 2020 cancelled season i.e. last year for super seniors or grad students making up for their cancelled freshman year. Starting 2025 the covid impact will be reduced to corner cases: Ivy League, NESCAC, UAA players with one more year of eligibility (players from leagues that did not play in '20 or '21), Juco players (potential 2 extra years), former red shirts with an additional year, etc.  This should all go extinct by 2026, so not a permanent issue.

I believe the move by the NCAA to allow D1 schools to go to a 40 man roster in 2023-24 is in recognition of the huge reduction in the number of available slots, particularly at the fully-funded i.e. Top 25 programs.

Now, if they would just get to work on the ridiculous 11.7...

@anotherparent posted:

Before 2008, players could transfer without sitting out a year.  Roster limits and scholarship rules were different too.  Check out some of the HSBBW discussions about how the sit rule was going to change everything:

https://community.hsbaseballwe...-updatepolk-concedes

https://community.hsbaseballwe...ng-just-dawned-on-me

I’m not sure what year the transfer/sit out rule changed. But I know after the 2012 season some of my son’s former travel teammates sat out to transfer 4>4. Some went 4>2>4 to avoid sitting out.

It’s the same number of players coming out, but there’s more overall players in college Baseball who have extra eligibility after the pandemic.

My son’s D3 team has 5 fifth year Senior position players and 2 fifth year Senior pitchers coming back next year.  Freshman classes at his school are getting smaller.  It’s similar throughout the conference

Incoming Recruiting Class

https://community.hsbaseballwe...iting-class-analysis

Here is a link to the Growth of JUCO, trending up

https://community.hsbaseballwe...includes-2023-season

@SpeedDemon posted:

Now, if they would just get to work on the ridiculous 11.7...

No kidding, I say football could be reduced.  They only really need say 30, starting offense, starting defense, special teams specialists (kicker, snapper,punter) and a couple they can split to offer partial schollies. At least they could easily cut the number in half.

my logic only comes from baseball being under-funded and football over-funded.  I don't care who brings in the money

Each college sports Scholarship count could be based on the following formula, assuming fully funded. (I like complicated, makes it seem more well thought out ;-)  vs say just going with 50% of roster.

1 per starting position (baseball would count 5 starting pitchers), and 50% more than that for backups.

Baseball:  8 positions, 5 starting pitchers, 7.5 additional  = 20.5  (roughly 9 more)

Football: 22 positions, 3 specialteamers, 12.5 additional = 37.5  (47 fewer)

Lacross: 10 positions, 5 additional = 15 (roughly 2.5 more)

Field Hockey: 11 positions, 5.5 additional = 16.5 (4.5 more)

Ice Hockey: 4 Positions, 1 goalie, 2&3rd lines(8), additional 6.5 = 19.5   (1.5 more)

Seems to me most school sports could increase scholarships based on football coming down to reality.

@HSDad22 posted:

No kidding, I say football could be reduced.  They only really need say 30, starting offense, starting defense, special teams specialists (kicker, snapper,punter) and a couple they can split to offer partial schollies. At least they could easily cut the number in half.

my logic only comes from baseball being under-funded and football over-funded.  I don't care who brings in the money

Each college sports Scholarship count could be based on the following formula, assuming fully funded. (I like complicated, makes it seem more well thought out ;-)  vs say just going with 50% of roster.

1 per starting position (baseball would count 5 starting pitchers), and 50% more than that for backups.

Baseball:  8 positions, 5 starting pitchers, 7.5 additional  = 20.5  (roughly 9 more)

Football: 22 positions, 3 specialteamers, 12.5 additional = 37.5  (47 fewer)

Lacross: 10 positions, 5 additional = 15 (roughly 2.5 more)

Field Hockey: 11 positions, 5.5 additional = 16.5 (4.5 more)

Ice Hockey: 4 Positions, 1 goalie, 2&3rd lines(8), additional 6.5 = 19.5   (1.5 more)

Seems to me most school sports could increase scholarships based on football coming down to reality.

100% agree. Nice formulas.

Once I figured out that the NCAA has traditionally been totally and unabashedly run for the benefit of the football teams at the Top 10 FBS schools, their opaque rules and strictures actually began to make sense.

Why risk losing a talented young athlete to a partial baseball scholarship when you can lure him with a 100% scholarship towards football?

Why not allow women's track and field and swimming and diving to have a bloated roster of non-scholarship athletes? Someone has to provide equivalency to the 100 man football team.

Why not allow the same female athlete to be counted twice - once for cross country, once for track and field - to help with equivalence?

Why not slot 60% of all headcount scholarships to the football team while allowing only equivalency scholarships for baseball and most other sports?

Why not allow only the football program to have an unlimited number of assistants and coaches while every other sport has a cap on the number of coaches?

I know, I know - football brings in money and most other sports don't. But that's chicken-egg. Providing unlimited resources to one sport for decades while severely restraining resources given to others that might compete with football for fan attention will of course result in a bigger return for the resource-laden football program.

It is getting better though, slowly. Football initially had no limit on the number of scholarships they could offer. The passage of Title IX in 1973 lead them to a cap of 105. This was reduced in 1978 to 95, and then in 1992 to 85. Baseball, softball, basketball, and ice hockey just got approved for additional paid coaches (went into effect July 1st) while FBS schools' grad assistants are now limited to 3 years of service in that role. So, baby steps.

Given the extra paid assistant coach and expansion to 40 players, plus the discrepancy between football and men's basketball being headcount sports vs baseball being an equivalency sport, I have to believe that an increase in the 11.7 is coming.  20 seems about right, but they should be all headcount. I can hope!

I wonder whether the new transfer rules are permanent.  If it wanted, the NCAA could reverse again, especially since the very same issues (such as recruiting out of summer leagues) are happening, and if lower graduation rates follow, that will be a strong argument.

2008 wasn't that long ago, and if you look at those discussions, the changes seemed permanent at the time.

@anotherparent posted:

I wonder whether the new transfer rules are permanent.  If it wanted, the NCAA could reverse again, especially since the very same issues (such as recruiting out of summer leagues) are happening, and if lower graduation rates follow, that will be a strong argument.

2008 wasn't that long ago, and if you look at those discussions, the changes seemed permanent at the time.

I hear you.

But I don't think so.

The tide has already turned: grad TAs have been ruled to be employees and have formed unions (first case was at Wisconsin I believe).  And there is litigation in process to consider athletes as employees, mostly so they can receive healthcare beyond their time in college for injuries sustained 'on the job'.

And if students are being paid (via healthcare, NIL, scholarship, stipends) and coaches are also paid, why can the coaches move freely to other positions with no waiting period but not the athletes?

Trends definitely come and go but I don't see student-athletes being treated as unpaid and indentured ever again.

@SpeedDemon posted:

................................
I know, I know - football brings in money and most other sports don't. But that's chicken-egg. Providing unlimited resources to one sport for decades while severely restraining resources given to others that might compete with football for fan attention will of course result in a bigger return for the resource-laden football program.

It is getting better though, slowly. Football initially had no limit on the number of scholarships they could offer. The passage of Title IX in 1973 lead them to a cap of 105. This was reduced in 1978 to 95, and then in 1992 to 85. Baseball, softball, basketball, and ice hockey just got approved for additional paid coaches (went into effect July 1st) while FBS schools' grad assistants are now limited to 3 years of service in that role. So, baby steps.

Given the extra paid assistant coach and expansion to 40 players, plus the discrepancy between football and men's basketball being headcount sports vs baseball being an equivalency sport, I have to believe that an increase in the 11.7 is coming.  20 seems about right, but they should be all headcount. I can hope!

Watch out for those unlimited resources to one sport.   A number of newspaper articles (local and national) are floating around about ways to reduce student debt.   Top of the ways to reduce college debt list is college athletics.

Here are couple excerpts from our local paper:

"Every state school in Virginia loses money on intercollegiate athletics. Even University of Virginia’s and Virginia Tech’s athletic departments fall below break-even, as do well over 90% of DI programs at state schools nationally.

Now is the time to examine specific options for reducing spending waste in collegiate athletics if we want to lower fees, and thus student debt, in the commonwealth.

To be sure, there is often abundant waste in high-flying football and men’s basketball. Beyond football and basketball, however, there is a need to examine the large array of Division I “minor” or “nonrevenue” sports, many of which might be better played at a far less expensive level.

Here is the reality.

Football in most cases are the cash cow

Baseball in many cases loses money

@fenwaysouth posted:

Watch out for those unlimited resources to one sport.   A number of newspaper articles (local and national) are floating around about ways to reduce student debt.   Top of the ways to reduce college debt list is college athletics.

Here are couple excerpts from our local paper:

"Every state school in Virginia loses money on intercollegiate athletics. Even University of Virginia’s and Virginia Tech’s athletic departments fall below break-even, as do well over 90% of DI programs at state schools nationally.

Now is the time to examine specific options for reducing spending waste in collegiate athletics if we want to lower fees, and thus student debt, in the commonwealth.

To be sure, there is often abundant waste in high-flying football and men’s basketball. Beyond football and basketball, however, there is a need to examine the large array of Division I “minor” or “nonrevenue” sports, many of which might be better played at a far less expensive level.

The simple fact is that few people, and this notably includes students, think about the existence of these squads or attend games or matches, yet when team budgets are added together, they cost a fortune.

Consider tennis. I’ve attended a number of tennis matches in Virginia and other states in recent years, and Division I teams rarely attract more than a few dozen students to their home contests. Or consider golf: How many undergrads can afford the time or expense to travel to elite country clubs to spend hours watching 18 holes of golf?

Or cross-country, which is almost always contested at distant tournaments with some parents — but very few, if any, students — attending the competitions. Or a slew of less well-known team sports that draw tiny audiences beyond the requisite parents and family.

For whom exactly are these contests being held?

Most of these secondary sports could certainly be played at the usually less expensive Division III level (which looks a lot like Division I before out-of-control sports spending began). This would maintain exciting competition on campus at a far more reasonable price.

Schools, of course, need to be mindful to ensure compliance with Title IX requirements. Also at issue: Athletic departments often hide behind an antiquated NCAA rule that requires teams to play at least 14 sports at the Division I level in order to compete in DI football and basketball. But waivers are permitted under NCAA rules. Universities should also pressure the NCAA to drop the 14-team DI rule altogether.

The time has come to address the “waste portion” of college sports. Reducing the expense of college athletics would significantly reduce the cost of higher education, and student loan debt."

I don't necessarily agree with all of it.  But I think dropping or modifying  the 14-team NCAA rule makes sense as a starting point to reduce the financial burden.

JMO.

That's interesting. Thanks.

You may know that the huge increases in tuition over the past 30 yrs have mostly gone towards administrative overhead and buildings, not sports. Of course, revamped stadiums and keeping-up-with-the-Ducks/Tigers/Gators-level training facilities are part of this, but they are not the main driver. (Pls google for details, they are easy to find.)

And while it's smart to consider the ROI on any investment, when it comes to a public good such as education the ROI doesn't typically accrue to the institution or even the payer. In other words, most college sports teams have never made money and will never make money because making money is not why they exist.

Harvard and Yale's crew teams have been leaky assets since 1852!

I think this is going to hurt baseball too.  How many kids are going to say "to heck with baseball, I have a better chance of playing football in college." or golf or basketball at a higher level then baseball.  It really seems like most hs seniors are not going to be recruited to d1 baseball.  And everything everyone said makes sense, why recruit hs seniors when you can get a kid already performing at that level.   To me, it is sad really.  What this all has become.  I wonder how many Aaron judges or mike trouts or ian happs won't be discovered because they are going to pick a different sport or just choose not to do anything.

Not just that, but will that cause a crash in youth baseball (which has been a cash cow for many)?  maybe that isn't a bad thing.  AAU will go back to being above average/elite level players.

@CollegebaseballInsights posted:

Here is the reality.

Football in most cases are the cash cow

Baseball in many cases loses money

Thank you.

But I still don't get it ... if the role of college sports is to produce income for the university (it’s not), why would anyone demand that a sport produce revenue first before receiving additional funds?

Nothing in the world works like that!

Every business gets their investment dollars up front and then goes out and tries to get people to pay for their good or service.

Why would college sports be different?

So the way I look at the chart above is

- don't invest an additional dime in football

- invest in the sports on the right side of the pie chart, one or two of them is apt to turn a profit sometime in the next few years

@Dadof3 posted:

I think this is going to hurt baseball too.  How many kids are going to say "to heck with baseball, I have a better chance of playing football in college." or golf or basketball at a higher level then baseball.  It really seems like most hs seniors are not going to be recruited to d1 baseball.  And everything everyone said makes sense, why recruit hs seniors when you can get a kid already performing at that level.   To me, it is sad really.  What this all has become.  I wonder how many Aaron judges or mike trouts or ian happs won't be discovered because they are going to pick a different sport or just choose not to do anything.

Not just that, but will that cause a crash in youth baseball (which has been a cash cow for many)?  maybe that isn't a bad thing.  AAU will go back to being above average/elite level players.

The challenges with recruiting are not exclusive to baseball. Many HS kids playing other sports are experiencing the same issues.

@Dadof3 posted:

I think this is going to hurt baseball too.  How many kids are going to say "to heck with baseball, I have a better chance of playing football in college." or golf or basketball at a higher level then baseball.  It really seems like most hs seniors are not going to be recruited to d1 baseball.  And everything everyone said makes sense, why recruit hs seniors when you can get a kid already performing at that level.   To me, it is sad really.  What this all has become.  I wonder how many Aaron judges or mike trouts or ian happs won't be discovered because they are going to pick a different sport or just choose not to do anything.

Not just that, but will that cause a crash in youth baseball (which has been a cash cow for many)?  maybe that isn't a bad thing.  AAU will go back to being above average/elite level players.

The portal is there for football and basketball. Same issues. If athletes want to switch sports to a growing sport and be in demand play lacrosse.

@CollegebaseballInsights posted:

Here is the reality.

Football in most cases are the cash cow

Baseball in many cases loses money

I have a question about the second chart -

what is the difference between operating expenses and total expenses for a college baseball program?

For a company, the difference would typically be capex, ie capital expenditures on things like buildings, equipment, fixtures, computers, etc.

But what could Georgia baseball be spending $2.5 - 3mm per year on? That’s an entire turf field, or new stadium seats, or new state of the art batting cages every year!

Thanks.

The 11.7 vs. full scholarship issue has been around a long time.

Fenway's article, I believe, refers to the fact that most college undergrads have to pay fees that go to athletics, whether or not the student actually ever watches an athletic event.  It's not a huge amount per student, but it's not nothing.

With the rise of NIL, unionization, etc., people really will start questioning the purpose of college sports.  The original purpose was to provide opportunities for (male) students to remain physically active while pursuing academic studies, the "sound mind in sound body" concept.  Even in the 1890s, Harvard and Yale were recruiting football players, so then it became about giving athletes a chance at an education.  Now it is so convoluted that it's not clear what it's for, even at levels below D1.  But given all the money involved, you can bet that people are going to try to figure it out, and I personally doubt that the outcome is going to be more scholarships.

@SpeedDemon posted:

I have a question about the second chart -

what is the difference between operating expenses and total expenses for a college baseball program?

For a company, the difference would typically be capex, ie capital expenditures on things like buildings, equipment, fixtures, computers, etc.

But what could Georgia baseball be spending $2.5 - 3mm per year on? That’s an entire turf field, or new stadium seats, or new state of the art batting cages every year!

Thanks.

Here is a link to the EADA Cutting tool.

They have a glossary of all terms

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/

@fenwaysouth, I agree that there is wasted spending in a lot of big time NCAA athletic programs. I wonder how it compares to the wasted spending on the administration side of those same colleges and universities. I bet it would pale in comparison. IMO the entire university system needs to be looked at. The runaway increases in tuition over the past 25 years is nothing short of criminal. In a normal marketplace that would have priced a lot of Americans out of going to college. Well, that couldn’t be allowed to happen so government backed student loans were pushed out and suggested by academic counselors from coast to coast. Students borrowed money, based on bad advice, without the foresight to understand what it would do to their future. But the government knew what it would do. It would make them in debt to the government for decades and easier to control. Our entire education system has been corrupted. NCAA sports are just a small part of it. Is it worth it to incur 100k in debt to obtain a general studies degree and play a sport for 4-5 years? For 98% of student athletes the answer is no. Unless money is no object.

@Dadof3 posted:

I think this is going to hurt baseball too.  How many kids are going to say "to heck with baseball, I have a better chance of playing football in college." or golf or basketball at a higher level then baseball.

probably not very many, in my opinion.

Legit D1 athletes are rare.  The very best of the best.  Athletes who are good enough to be D1 in multiple sports?  Even rarer.

I live in a city of 250,000 that has 4 high schools.  Of the kids that are from my son’s high school graduation class, only 4 of them (including my kid) from the entire city are still playing college baseball, and none of them D1.

The kid who is playing and starting at a D2 was dominant at a youth level, “future MLB draft pick”, they said, started at shortstop on high school varsity as a freshman, and at shooting guard and quarterback as a sophomore.  Parents around us talked in hushed tones about this kid (except HIS parents, interestingly enough, they were very humble).  “Maybe he’ll get drafted in multiple sports “. Blah blah blah

The reality: No chance that kid would play D1. Certainly not power five.

Multiple that story by 100 communities across the nation.

@3and2Fastball posted:

probably not very many, in my opinion.

Legit D1 athletes are rare.  The very best of the best.  Athletes who are good enough to be D1 in multiple sports?  Even rarer.

I live in a city of 250,000 that has 4 high schools.  Of the kids that are from my son’s high school graduation class, only 4 of them (including my kid) from the entire city are still playing college baseball, and none of them D1.

The kid who is playing and starting at a D2 was dominant at a youth level, “future MLB draft pick”, they said, started at shortstop on high school varsity as a freshman, and at shooting guard and quarterback as a sophomore.  Parents around us talked in hushed tones about this kid (except HIS parents, interestingly enough, they were very humble).  “Maybe he’ll get drafted in multiple sports “. Blah blah blah

The reality: No chance that kid would play D1. Certainly not power five.

Multiple that story by 100 communities across the nation.

Agree 100%. Most parents & HS players don’t know what a D1 player actually looks like. Unfortunately a lot of HS and travel ball coaches don’t know either. The opinions of all these people are influenced way to much by scouting services and social media. Just because a 16 year old kid that’s working a tournament for VTool sends out a tweet declaring “Johnny is a D1 talent” doesn’t make it true. But it does set expectations in the minds of players and parents. Expectations that are largely unrealistic.

@3and2Fastball posted:

probably not very many, in my opinion.

Legit D1 athletes are rare.  The very best of the best.  Athletes who are good enough to be D1 in multiple sports?  Even rarer.

I live in a city of 250,000 that has 4 high schools.  Of the kids that are from my son’s high school graduation class, only 4 of them (including my kid) from the entire city are still playing college baseball, and none of them D1.

The kid who is playing and starting at a D2 was dominant at a youth level, “future MLB draft pick”, they said, started at shortstop on high school varsity as a freshman, and at shooting guard and quarterback as a sophomore.  Parents around us talked in hushed tones about this kid (except HIS parents, interestingly enough, they were very humble).  “Maybe he’ll get drafted in multiple sports “. Blah blah blah

The reality: No chance that kid would play D1. Certainly not power five.

Multiple that story by 100 communities across the nation.

Just for the sake of understanding better, what level of high school? 6a?  Did the kid you were speaking of have the measurables of a d1 athlete?  How is the kid doing at the d2?  Did you know (when the kid was in HS) he wasn't d1? I am interested in all of this (so I become better informed)

Thanks!

"The runaway increases in tuition over the past 25 years is nothing short of criminal. In a normal marketplace that would have priced a lot of Americans out of going to college. Well, that couldn’t be allowed to happen so government backed student loans were pushed out and suggested by academic counselors from coast to coast. Students borrowed money, based on bad advice, without the foresight to understand what it would do to their future. "  1000% correct.  I'm from the Government and I'm here to help-- are the most dangerous words out there.  We have millions of people who have worthless degrees; or dropped out before finishing their degrees; or are professionals like doctors who owe $300-500k. 

"Legit D1 athletes are rare.  The very best of the best.  Athletes who are good enough to be D1 in multiple sports?  Even rarer".  True that. My 2023 is, in my eyes, an unbelievable athlete.  Any sport he picked up, he did quickly and easily. Always the best player on his baseball teams. Freshman varsity. multiple honors. Skiing? He could carve, race, ski bumps WAY before normal.  Basketball? I had parents who watched a pick up game ask what club team he played for, etc... I had to tell them he doesn't really play. They were incredulous.  Soccer? he would only pick up a ball 1 week before the season; made All-Conference for 2 years.  That all said, not even close to a true upper level D1 baseball player. Took me awhile to figure it out. Now I know.

@anotherparent posted:

The 11.7 vs. full scholarship issue has been around a long time.

Fenway's article, I believe, refers to the fact that most college undergrads have to pay fees that go to athletics, whether or not the student actually ever watches an athletic event.  It's not a huge amount per student, but it's not nothing.

With the rise of NIL, unionization, etc., people really will start questioning the purpose of college sports.  The original purpose was to provide opportunities for (male) students to remain physically active while pursuing academic studies, the "sound mind in sound body" concept.  Even in the 1890s, Harvard and Yale were recruiting football players, so then it became about giving athletes a chance at an education.  Now it is so convoluted that it's not clear what it's for, even at levels below D1.  But given all the money involved, you can bet that people are going to try to figure it out, and I personally doubt that the outcome is going to be more scholarships.

Interesting. Thanks.

My bet is that D1 will bifurcate into schools (FBS) that see sports as a revenue generator and fund them to their max potential, and all others (FCS) that view sports solely as an expense. I would also bet that some lower level D1's move down to D3 to curtail their costs as the cost of being competitive rises.

No question in my mind that the number of allowable baseball scholarships is going to increase. 11.7 equivalents is just too imbalanced given the increasing size of the roster, and the 13 basketball, 85 football headcount totals.

Time will tell!

Just read an article about Lou Gehrig - he got a football scholarship to Columbia . . . in 1921. He had immigrant parents who worked low-paying jobs, was going to get a good education because of sports.

But then someone saw him play baseball, and he left college because the signing bonus was too good to pass up.

@CollegebaseballInsights posted:

Here is a link to the EADA Cutting tool.

They have a glossary of all terms

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/

Got it.

Would be interesting to know how much of total expenses are related to coaches salaries/benefits, contract expenses, promotional materials and other items that don't directly involve the players vs the direct overhead of supplies, equipment and scholarships. Also, which of the non-operating expenses are the largest.

Thanks for this!

Expenses

All expenses attributable to intercollegiate athletic activities. This includes appearance guarantees and options, athletically related student aid, contract services, equipment, fundraising activities, operating expenses, promotional activities, recruiting expenses, salaries and benefits, supplies, travel, and any other expenses attributable to intercollegiate athletic activities.

Operating (Game Day) Expenses

All expenses an institution incurs attributable to home, away, and neutral-site intercollegiate athletic contests (commonly known as game-day expenses), for (A) Lodging, meals, transportation, uniforms, and equipment for coaches, team members, support staff (including, but not limited to team managers and trainers), and others; and (B) Officials.