Best Football Team for the $$$ !

Quote:The Cincinnati Bearcats have wrapped up a somewhat down season, finishing the year 7-5 before taking a lopsided 42-7 loss to San Diego State in the Hawaii Bowl. Cinci won nine games in each of the previous two seasons, though each year once again ended with a bowl game loss. Yet in college football, a sport in which you typically get what you pay for, no team has beaten Cincinnati when it comes to getting the most for their money. For the third year running the Bearcats are our best college football team for the buck, spending the least per win ($1.79 million) among the sport’s top teams.

Taking second on the list this year is BYU, which also lost its bowl game. Like Cincinnati, BYU has been consistently solid on the field, spreading 25 wins rather evenly across the last three seasons. And the Cougars have spent slightly less than the Bearcats in that time. In fact, BYU is behind Cincinnati by just $28,000 per win, making this year’s competition a photo finish.

To find the best bargains in college football we compared on-field results in the three most recent seasons to football expenses across the three most recent years for which the data is available (2012-13 through 2014-15). As in past years, our approach assumes that one year’s expenses influence the following year’s performance. Our pool is limited to the 71 teams that spent at least $40 million over three seasons, which winds up including the Power Five conferences and a handful of other programs. To correct for differing schedule lengths and bowl games, we also adjusted each team’s win total to represent a 12-game season.

Temple just skirts that bare minimum, spending $40.3 million over the last three seasons. The Owls haven’t been great for most of that time, putting up just eight wins prior to this year’s ten-win effort. Yet that sudden on-field success coupled with minimal expenses was enough to drop Temple’s spending to $2.3 million per victory, ninth-least among teams in our pool.

Though Cinci and BYU are among the sport’s lowest spenders, that doesn’t mean spending big never works out. Oregon (No. 3) and Stanford (No. 5) spend nearly $20 million per year on football; Clemson (No. 7) and Michigan State (No. 10) are well above that threshold. All four spent between $2 million and $2.4 million per victory, while a win for the average football team costs around $3.5 million.

Every major conference is represented in the top ten, though the Pac-12 has the biggest foothold with three teams: Oregon, Stanford and Utah (No. 8).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2...oney-2015/

(01-04-2016 11:52 AM)Crewdogz Wrote:  Best Football Team for the $$$ !

Quote:The Cincinnati Bearcats have wrapped up a somewhat down season, finishing the year 7-5 before taking a lopsided 42-7 loss to San Diego State in the Hawaii Bowl. Cinci won nine games in each of the previous two seasons, though each year once again ended with a bowl game loss. Yet in college football, a sport in which you typically get what you pay for, no team has beaten Cincinnati when it comes to getting the most for their money. For the third year running the Bearcats are our best college football team for the buck, spending the least per win ($1.79 million) among the sport’s top teams.

Taking second on the list this year is BYU, which also lost its bowl game. Like Cincinnati, BYU has been consistently solid on the field, spreading 25 wins rather evenly across the last three seasons. And the Cougars have spent slightly less than the Bearcats in that time. In fact, BYU is behind Cincinnati by just $28,000 per win, making this year’s competition a photo finish.

To find the best bargains in college football we compared on-field results in the three most recent seasons to football expenses across the three most recent years for which the data is available (2012-13 through 2014-15). As in past years, our approach assumes that one year’s expenses influence the following year’s performance. Our pool is limited to the 71 teams that spent at least $40 million over three seasons, which winds up including the Power Five conferences and a handful of other programs. To correct for differing schedule lengths and bowl games, we also adjusted each team’s win total to represent a 12-game season.

Temple just skirts that bare minimum, spending $40.3 million over the last three seasons. The Owls haven’t been great for most of that time, putting up just eight wins prior to this year’s ten-win effort. Yet that sudden on-field success coupled with minimal expenses was enough to drop Temple’s spending to $2.3 million per victory, ninth-least among teams in our pool.

Though Cinci and BYU are among the sport’s lowest spenders, that doesn’t mean spending big never works out. Oregon (No. 3) and Stanford (No. 5) spend nearly $20 million per year on football; Clemson (No. 7) and Michigan State (No. 10) are well above that threshold. All four spent between $2 million and $2.4 million per victory, while a win for the average football team costs around $3.5 million.

Every major conference is represented in the top ten, though the Pac-12 has the biggest foothold with three teams: Oregon, Stanford and Utah (No. 8).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2...oney-2015/

I say any press is good press, especially when it categorizes us as being among the sport's top teams.

Just think of how much less we could spend per win if we were not paying an over the hill coach such a bloated salary. He pocketed about 20% of that total cost per win. Lost opportunity there for the bean counters.

(01-04-2016 12:40 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Just think of how much less we could spend per win if we were not paying an over the hill coach such a bloated salary. He pocketed about 20% of that total cost per win. Lost opportunity there for the bean counters.

Do you think this guy ever gets tired of saying the exact same thing over and over and over and over... I mean who is he trying to convince? Who among us still likes Tubs here?

Does he copy and paste this stuff? Or maybe like word it ever so slightly differently each time just to see how many variations he can get?

Perhaps not as tired as you are in responding to me. I bet if we looked at your post history 50% > would be quoting my posts. I think I'll keep it up since you appear to have a crush on me. Not that I can blame you. I am sorta handsome.

(01-04-2016 01:50 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Perhaps not as tired as you are in responding to me. I bet if we looked at your post history 50% > would be quoting my posts. I think I'll keep it up since you appear to have a crush on me. Not that I can blame you. I am sorta handsome.

Ohhhhh! Guys guys! He unblocked me! Im giddy! I dont know what to do with my hands. I thought after that time you started a whole thread in my honor because you were upset about losing internet rep I'd never get you back!

Tubby Lovie. Smooch.

(01-04-2016 01:58 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Tubby Lovie. Smooch.

Thats a... weird visual. But whatever floats your boat. At least its not more "misery must have company!!!" type material.


Wait a sec. You honestly believe youre the only one who dislikes tubs and wants him gone, dont you? Youve shut out every other negative Tubs posts, mine included, and you see everyone here as "sheeple" who are still enamored with Tubs and youre the enlightened one and only you can see it... My god.

Hell, if we only published original thoughts on here, there'd only be one post a month.

Yep. By t-shirt. In all caps.

(01-04-2016 03:10 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Yep. By t-shirt. In all caps.

Good one? I guess... ooooh i got an idea, try calling me a teen with aspergers again. That one was just as funny.

Ill give ya another go though, whatcha got?

Can somebody do a follow up article:
Fluberville: Worst Coach for the Money
2.5mil/yer 7-6 (in a G5 conference no less)

(01-04-2016 01:19 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-04-2016 12:40 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Just think of how much less we could spend per win if we were not paying an over the hill coach such a bloated salary. He pocketed about 20% of that total cost per win. Lost opportunity there for the bean counters.

Do you think this guy ever gets tired of saying the exact same thing over and over and over and over... I mean who is he trying to convince? Who among us still likes Tubs here?

Does he copy and paste this stuff? Or maybe like word it ever so slightly differently each time just to see how many variations he can get?

He's a breath of fresh air compared to another poster that still thinks Fluberville is funny and original!







Cheers Bearcat#1

i know lots here don't like flame wars between posters, but i love them. it's the only entertainment i derive from this board these days. there's like two or three topics that generate responses which is like 50 threads. keep on hatin boys!

Very impressive stuff by the football program! We've come a long way baby



(I just felt like posting this pic and it's too big for a sig and it almost makes sense here)

(01-07-2016 10:14 AM)bearcatfan1211 Wrote:  

(01-04-2016 01:19 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-04-2016 12:40 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Just think of how much less we could spend per win if we were not paying an over the hill coach such a bloated salary. He pocketed about 20% of that total cost per win. Lost opportunity there for the bean counters.

Do you think this guy ever gets tired of saying the exact same thing over and over and over and over... I mean who is he trying to convince? Who among us still likes Tubs here?

Does he copy and paste this stuff? Or maybe like word it ever so slightly differently each time just to see how many variations he can get?

He's a breath of fresh air compared to another poster that still thinks Fluberville is funny and original!







Cheers Bearcat#1

Haha I dont think its funny or fresh at this point....its just his name at this stage.

(01-07-2016 06:56 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Can somebody do a follow up article:
Fluberville: Worst Coach for the Money
2.5mil/yer 7-6 (in a G5 conference no less)

Well, at least he's not the highest paid guy in the G5 now... for now...

(01-07-2016 06:02 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(01-07-2016 10:14 AM)bearcatfan1211 Wrote:  

(01-04-2016 01:19 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-04-2016 12:40 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Just think of how much less we could spend per win if we were not paying an over the hill coach such a bloated salary. He pocketed about 20% of that total cost per win. Lost opportunity there for the bean counters.

Do you think this guy ever gets tired of saying the exact same thing over and over and over and over... I mean who is he trying to convince? Who among us still likes Tubs here?

Does he copy and paste this stuff? Or maybe like word it ever so slightly differently each time just to see how many variations he can get?

He's a breath of fresh air compared to another poster that still thinks Fluberville is funny and original!







Cheers Bearcat#1

Haha I dont think its funny or fresh at this point....its just his name at this stage.

I get it, just drives me nuts for some reason!

Even in the locker room after the Miami win when he got all "fired up", it still seemed so forced and unnatural. Almost like he didn't feel the passion and excitement in that moment like he should have, but thought that reaction was what should happen so he forced it. Some older coaches (in all sports) don't realize the detriment they can cause to a program by trying to hang on to something that's passed them by.