(06-05-2014 02:21 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 12:44 PM)Klak Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 11:36 AM)ManzanoWolf Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 08:37 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s...g1rtu2y0m6

There is no standard for reporting, but this is the best we have to compare to other schools.

SBC Football Schools

#72 . . NMSU . . $30.1M . . $28.5M . . $19.7M . . 65.3%
#74 . . TxSt . . $29.8M . . $27.7M . . $21.0M . . 70.7%
#91 . . GSU . . $26.7M . . $27.3M . . $22.6M . . 84.6%
#114 . . USA . . $21.1M . . $19.8M . . $16.5M . . 78.3%
#118 . . ASU . . $19.8M . . $21.4M . . $10.3M . . 52.3%
#119 . . Idaho . . $19.6M . . $19.7M . . $9.3M . . 47.4%
#120 . . Troy . . $19.5M . . $19.5M . . $12.9M . . 65.9%
#127 . . UL . . $18.1M . . $18.6M . . $7.7M . . 42.4%
#131 . . stAte . . $16.3M . . $16.3M . . $9.3M . . 57.3%
#158 . . GaSo . . $13.2M . . $13.2M . . $8.3M . . 63.0%
#187 . . ULM . . $11.2M . . $11.4M . . $4.1M . . 36.5%

Correlation of Expenses and 1-year Winning Pct: -0.597
Correlation of Expenses and 5-year Winning Pct: -0.614
-.40 to -.69 Strong negative relationship

These are pretty strong negative correlations that suggest that a big budget equates to LESS success on the field. Granted, this is a small sample size AND it's only football winning percentage, but it's interesting to look at.

EDIT: Ga State and NMSU are certainly skewing the numbers. Without them, the numbers move to -0.277 (1 yr) and -0.200 (5 yr). -.20 to -.29 weak negative relationship

Ha! Fun analysis. I figured we were skewing things. I also suspect that including your (and maybe App's) FCS budget and records is affecting the results. (NOTE: I'm not claiming you won't some games next year...it just seems almost inevitable that your expenses will go up and your win% will go down.) Will be interesting to see if this ever "corrects" itself once the move-ups are all settled in.

I suspect that over time and over a larger sample the correlation will be close to zero.

I just always laugh when budget numbers start getting tossed around as if they mean anything. Once you factor in cost differences in different locations, non-standard reporting, over/under-achieving athletic departments, and 100 other things, budgets don't mean a whole lot on the field.

(06-05-2014 03:31 PM)Klak Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 02:21 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 12:44 PM)Klak Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 11:36 AM)ManzanoWolf Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 08:37 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s...g1rtu2y0m6

There is no standard for reporting, but this is the best we have to compare to other schools.

SBC Football Schools

#72 . . NMSU . . $30.1M . . $28.5M . . $19.7M . . 65.3%
#74 . . TxSt . . $29.8M . . $27.7M . . $21.0M . . 70.7%
#91 . . GSU . . $26.7M . . $27.3M . . $22.6M . . 84.6%
#114 . . USA . . $21.1M . . $19.8M . . $16.5M . . 78.3%
#118 . . ASU . . $19.8M . . $21.4M . . $10.3M . . 52.3%
#119 . . Idaho . . $19.6M . . $19.7M . . $9.3M . . 47.4%
#120 . . Troy . . $19.5M . . $19.5M . . $12.9M . . 65.9%
#127 . . UL . . $18.1M . . $18.6M . . $7.7M . . 42.4%
#131 . . stAte . . $16.3M . . $16.3M . . $9.3M . . 57.3%
#158 . . GaSo . . $13.2M . . $13.2M . . $8.3M . . 63.0%
#187 . . ULM . . $11.2M . . $11.4M . . $4.1M . . 36.5%

Correlation of Expenses and 1-year Winning Pct: -0.597
Correlation of Expenses and 5-year Winning Pct: -0.614
-.40 to -.69 Strong negative relationship

These are pretty strong negative correlations that suggest that a big budget equates to LESS success on the field. Granted, this is a small sample size AND it's only football winning percentage, but it's interesting to look at.

EDIT: Ga State and NMSU are certainly skewing the numbers. Without them, the numbers move to -0.277 (1 yr) and -0.200 (5 yr). -.20 to -.29 weak negative relationship

Ha! Fun analysis. I figured we were skewing things. I also suspect that including your (and maybe App's) FCS budget and records is affecting the results. (NOTE: I'm not claiming you won't some games next year...it just seems almost inevitable that your expenses will go up and your win% will go down.) Will be interesting to see if this ever "corrects" itself once the move-ups are all settled in.

I suspect that over time and over a larger sample the correlation will be close to zero.

I just always laugh when budget numbers start getting tossed around as if they mean anything. Once you factor in cost differences in different locations, non-standard reporting, over/under-achieving athletic departments, and 100 other things, budgets don't mean a whole lot on the field.

True dat !!

(06-05-2014 11:36 AM)ManzanoWolf Wrote:  SBC Football Schools

#72 . . NMSU . . $30.1M . . $28.5M . . $19.7M . . 65.3%
#74 . . TxSt . . $29.8M . . $27.7M . . $21.0M . . 70.7%
#91 . . GSU . . $26.7M . . $27.3M . . $22.6M . . 84.6%
#114 . . USA . . $21.1M . . $19.8M . . $16.5M . . 78.3%
#118 . . ASU . . $19.8M . . $21.4M . . $10.3M . . 52.3%
#119 . . Idaho . . $19.6M . . $19.7M . . $9.3M . . 47.4%
#120 . . Troy . . $19.5M . . $19.5M . . $12.9M . . 65.9%
#127 . . UL . . $18.1M . . $18.6M . . $7.7M . . 42.4%
#131 . . stAte . . $16.3M . . $16.3M . . $9.3M . . 57.3%
#158 . . GaSo . . $13.2M . . $13.2M . . $8.3M . . 63.0%
#187 . . ULM . . $11.2M . . $11.4M . . $4.1M . . 36.5%

I was kinda surprised to see NMSU with that number.
But I think a lot of that may be 'Aggie Vision' TV production.
Though with school accounting such as it is, there's no telling.

The other more troubling aspect is the Top5 conferences versus the
have nots getting subsidized. I'm enjoying each season more, because
I'm not sure what college sports will be in ten years.

I never trust our numbers to compare to anyone else's. But it is nice to see a significant rise in the number even if it is not accurate overall.

(06-05-2014 10:55 AM)slycat Wrote:  Percent Subsidy

App St - 52.34
stAte - 57.27
Idaho - 47.44
GSU - 84.59
GS - 63.03
ULL - 42.40
ULM - 36.53
NMSU - 65.35
USA - 78.26
TXST - 70.67
Troy - 65.92

No wonder ULM's budget is low. Good for them though.

One thing I'm curious about in the reporting is the contributions figure.

AState always reports a low number (this year around $400k). If you look at the athletic foundation tax return the only explanation is they are only counting money from the foundation paid directly to the university and not expenditures made by the foundation directly on behalf of athletics.

Has anyone looked at their school's numbers? I'm curious whether this is a standard practice.

Jesus, 84% subsidy?

(06-06-2014 08:29 AM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  Jesus, 84% subsidy?

As I recall that is @ what ODU and James Madison have.

I thought I remember hearing from someone that TK has said our budget going into the '14-'15 year will be $16M. This would include all of the new fees plus all of the new revenue by moving up and into the SBC.

IIRC, at the time of our first official look into FBS about 6-8 years ago, our budget was no more than $10M, maybe just $9M.

Someone correct me of I'm wrong with those numbers...but I remember hearing that we would have to double our money, and Sam Baker wanted nothing to do with that.

Need to decrease that subsidy, but we are getting closer to that $20M mark.

(06-06-2014 09:36 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 08:29 AM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  Jesus, 84% subsidy?

As I recall that is @ what ODU and James Madison have.

No need to recall, the information is a click away.

ODU is 73% and JMU is 79%