Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Fast forward to 2025...
Author Message
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 15,036
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 569
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #81
RE: Fast forward to 2025...
(07-18-2019 08:33 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  I have removed the "not allocated by gender/sport" as that is overhead.

No, it's not overhead. It's often the place where an AD hides expenditures that really just benefit one sport (you know which sport) but are claimed to benefit the athletic department as a whole.
07-19-2019 03:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goodknightfl Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,205
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 253
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #82
RE: Fast forward to 2025...
(07-11-2019 10:05 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  2025-no conference changes. Every one is finally happy where they are

CFP expands to 8. 5 auto bids, 2 at large, 1 for the highest ranked G5 school as long as they are in the Top 12.

Which will never ever happen again..after 2025
07-19-2019 03:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
zoocrew Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 602
Joined: Mar 2019
Reputation: 17
I Root For: PITT, NAVY, MBB
Location:
Post: #83
RE: Fast forward to 2025...
Still think the PAC early offers the Texahoma 4 again plus KU but not all at the same time.

But I could also see OU taking OkSU to the SEC because they don’t lose the state of Texas with A&M’s presence and I doubt the B1G would let them bring OkSU. The SEC might.

At that point the B1G is probably out and the PAC definitely isn’t above making whatever invite gets Texas. Could see anything from an all 4 Texas teams invite to KU/TT to the PAC with UT going independent and joining the ACC for olympics.

So many options including everyone standing pat. I think OU is the trigger.

A sleeper could be one of the “Little 8” abandoning ship early to the PAC like Colorado did. Texas Tech would be my pick for that. If I ran the PAC I’d take Tech without UT if I couldn’t get a package deal.
(This post was last modified: 07-19-2019 03:21 PM by zoocrew.)
07-19-2019 03:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,320
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 159
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #84
RE: Fast forward to 2025...
On TCU, it's not just Patterson, as it was Petersen at Boise State, because the budget is so large, whereas Boise State you see is very far down the list - their slow fade from relevance not that surprising.

$92.8M on sports teams, $39.2M on football, is top 20. Even removing the coaching staff from the equation they have more money in the program than over half the SEC, double that of many P5 schools. They also have no other power school in the DFW market, except obviously Texas who are actually a different market. So I think TCU would be very attractive for a high profile coach when Patterson retires. But it's a program like Michigan State (both Football and Basketball) where the resources are higher and more elite than is perceived, so the success is likely to continue even with inevitable coaching changes.

When you look by comparison at the resources actually available for football, you can begin to understand the struggles USC is having getting their program back on solid footing -- it's less moneyed than you might expect. TCU has a much more solid and better funded athletic department and football program.

The shocking ones to me were the high overhead costs of BYU, which placed much less moneyed Colorado State and Central Florida as the clear G5 schools best positioned to have successful programs moving up to the B12. Houston is still down the list, but they have been investing, so they may well climb. I honestly think those four schools are the most likely B12 replacement choices, Cincinnati a bit distant 5th.

Back to TCU. I do not place TCU on the same plane as OU and Texas, which are both perennial top 20 programs with long history, flagship schools, and large alumni bases. If on a 10 scale Texas is a 10 in expansion value (in the elite group with Florida, Ohio State, Notre Dame and Penn State in value) and Oklahoma a solid 8.5 or even 9 (We are in high value name brand territory like Wisconsin, Georgia and Washington), then TCU comes in only at a 7, despite being on equal footing in budgetary terms (you are looking at Miami, Michigan State, Stanford value picks).

The only other one that registers is Kansas, but they have been so poor in football, and budgeted so small that they're peers in athletics are Maryland and Wake Forest, or even high G5 schools. As an institution they are top 40 or top 50 among FBS. But that is pretty borderline.

The ranking of the public schools in the "little-8" tells you none have a shot at realignment, as they are all outside the top 50, and excepting KU, none has high AI.
51. Iowa State
53. Oklahoma State
61. West Virginia
62. Kansas State
64. Texas Tech
67. Kansas
Baylor comes in at 31 (the first in "tier-5"), but actually 31-51 ($23-28M) is really a pile of similar budget lower middle of P5, making them more like 51 Iowa State (the last in "tier-5") than TCU, OU and UT (top 20). Baylor also has issues that make them less attractive than their athletic stature, plus they are also not a research school.

So my TCU comments were more in comparison with the other B12 schools. They have separated from the other little-8. They may be like Louisville in the last realignment, the surprise school to have standing (metrics made Louisville a runaway choice over UConn and Cincy, despite bad AI). All I am saying is do not be shocked if they wind up being the 3rd B12 school to move (as to where, I haven't a clue, as they are a non-starter for the B1G and make no sense for the SEC ... they only make some sense going with Texas to the ACC or P12--I don't see Texas going P12 period).
07-19-2019 03:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
zoocrew Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 602
Joined: Mar 2019
Reputation: 17
I Root For: PITT, NAVY, MBB
Location:
Post: #85
RE: Fast forward to 2025...
(07-19-2019 03:30 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  On TCU, it's not just Patterson, as it was Petersen at Boise State, because the budget is so large, whereas Boise State you see is very far down the list - their slow fade from relevance not that surprising.

$92.8M on sports teams, $39.2M on football, is top 20. Even removing the coaching staff from the equation they have more money in the program than over half the SEC, double that of many P5 schools. They also have no other power school in the DFW market, except obviously Texas who are actually a different market. So I think TCU would be very attractive for a high profile coach when Patterson retires. But it's a program like Michigan State (both Football and Basketball) where the resources are higher and more elite than is perceived, so the success is likely to continue even with inevitable coaching changes.

When you look by comparison at the resources actually available for football, you can begin to understand the struggles USC is having getting their program back on solid footing -- it's less moneyed than you might expect. TCU has a much more solid and better funded athletic department and football program.

The shocking ones to me were the high overhead costs of BYU, which placed much less moneyed Colorado State and Central Florida as the clear G5 schools best positioned to have successful programs moving up to the B12. Houston is still down the list, but they have been investing, so they may well climb. I honestly think those four schools are the most likely B12 replacement choices, Cincinnati a bit distant 5th.

Back to TCU. I do not place TCU on the same plane as OU and Texas, which are both perennial top 20 programs with long history, flagship schools, and large alumni bases. If on a 10 scale Texas is a 10 in expansion value (in the elite group with Florida, Ohio State, Notre Dame and Penn State in value) and Oklahoma a solid 8.5 or even 9 (We are in high value name brand territory like Wisconsin, Georgia and Washington), then TCU comes in only at a 7, despite being on equal footing in budgetary terms (you are looking at Miami, Michigan State, Stanford value picks).

The only other one that registers is Kansas, but they have been so poor in football, and budgeted so small that they're peers in athletics are Maryland and Wake Forest, or even high G5 schools. As an institution they are top 40 or top 50 among FBS. But that is pretty borderline.

The ranking of the public schools in the "little-8" tells you none have a shot at realignment, as they are all outside the top 50, and excepting KU, none has high AI.
51. Iowa State
53. Oklahoma State
61. West Virginia
62. Kansas State
64. Texas Tech
67. Kansas
Baylor comes in at 31 (the first in "tier-5"), but actually 31-51 ($23-28M) is really a pile of similar budget lower middle of P5, making them more like 51 Iowa State (the last in "tier-5") than TCU, OU and UT (top 20). Baylor also has issues that make them less attractive than their athletic stature, plus they are also not a research school.

So my TCU comments were more in comparison with the other B12 schools. They have separated from the other little-8. They may be like Louisville in the last realignment, the surprise school to have standing (metrics made Louisville a runaway choice over UConn and Cincy, despite bad AI). All I am saying is do not be shocked if they wind up being the 3rd B12 school to move (as to where, I haven't a clue, as they are a non-starter for the B1G and make no sense for the SEC ... they only make some sense going with Texas to the ACC or P12--I don't see Texas going P12 period).

Good info here. TCU would kill it in the ACC but I don’t see it happening. Big 12 lifer imo. They’ll keep winning games they shouldn’t regardless.
(This post was last modified: 07-19-2019 03:41 PM by zoocrew.)
07-19-2019 03:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jjoey52 Online
All American
*

Posts: 3,253
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation: 189
I Root For: ISU
Location:
Post: #86
Fast forward to 2025...
No one really knows BYU situation, mormon church keeps things very quiet. CSU is no successful athletic program, look up their records.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
07-19-2019 05:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ohio Poly Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,158
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 0
I Root For: Ohio Poly
Location:
Post: #87
RE: Fast forward to 2025...
Welcome to the G6, New-B12 !
07-19-2019 09:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 33,979
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 933
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #88
RE: Fast forward to 2025...
(07-19-2019 03:30 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  On TCU, it's not just Patterson, as it was Petersen at Boise State, because the budget is so large, whereas Boise State you see is very far down the list - their slow fade from relevance not that surprising.

$92.8M on sports teams, $39.2M on football, is top 20. Even removing the coaching staff from the equation they have more money in the program than over half the SEC, double that of many P5 schools. They also have no other power school in the DFW market, except obviously Texas who are actually a different market. So I think TCU would be very attractive for a high profile coach when Patterson retires. But it's a program like Michigan State (both Football and Basketball) where the resources are higher and more elite than is perceived, so the success is likely to continue even with inevitable coaching changes.

When you look by comparison at the resources actually available for football, you can begin to understand the struggles USC is having getting their program back on solid footing -- it's less moneyed than you might expect. TCU has a much more solid and better funded athletic department and football program.

The shocking ones to me were the high overhead costs of BYU, which placed much less moneyed Colorado State and Central Florida as the clear G5 schools best positioned to have successful programs moving up to the B12. Houston is still down the list, but they have been investing, so they may well climb. I honestly think those four schools are the most likely B12 replacement choices, Cincinnati a bit distant 5th.

Back to TCU. I do not place TCU on the same plane as OU and Texas, which are both perennial top 20 programs with long history, flagship schools, and large alumni bases. If on a 10 scale Texas is a 10 in expansion value (in the elite group with Florida, Ohio State, Notre Dame and Penn State in value) and Oklahoma a solid 8.5 or even 9 (We are in high value name brand territory like Wisconsin, Georgia and Washington), then TCU comes in only at a 7, despite being on equal footing in budgetary terms (you are looking at Miami, Michigan State, Stanford value picks).

The only other one that registers is Kansas, but they have been so poor in football, and budgeted so small that they're peers in athletics are Maryland and Wake Forest, or even high G5 schools. As an institution they are top 40 or top 50 among FBS. But that is pretty borderline.

The ranking of the public schools in the "little-8" tells you none have a shot at realignment, as they are all outside the top 50, and excepting KU, none has high AI.
51. Iowa State
53. Oklahoma State
61. West Virginia
62. Kansas State
64. Texas Tech
67. Kansas
Baylor comes in at 31 (the first in "tier-5"), but actually 31-51 ($23-28M) is really a pile of similar budget lower middle of P5, making them more like 51 Iowa State (the last in "tier-5") than TCU, OU and UT (top 20). Baylor also has issues that make them less attractive than their athletic stature, plus they are also not a research school.

So my TCU comments were more in comparison with the other B12 schools. They have separated from the other little-8. They may be like Louisville in the last realignment, the surprise school to have standing (metrics made Louisville a runaway choice over UConn and Cincy, despite bad AI). All I am saying is do not be shocked if they wind up being the 3rd B12 school to move (as to where, I haven't a clue, as they are a non-starter for the B1G and make no sense for the SEC ... they only make some sense going with Texas to the ACC or P12--I don't see Texas going P12 period).

I see why you use "little 8." Its a term that was used for decades to describe the Big 10 other than Ohio St. and Michigan. When Penn St. joined they didn't fit in the little 8. But with Maryland and Rutgers, the Big 10 now really has a "little 10."
07-20-2019 12:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Realignment Enthusiast
*

Posts: 1,845
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 80
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: :uoᴉʇɐɔo⌉
Post: #89
RE: Fast forward to 2025...
(07-20-2019 12:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  I see why you use "little 8." Its a term that was used for decades to describe the Big 10 other than Ohio St. and Michigan. When Penn St. joined they didn't fit in the little 8. But with Maryland and Rutgers, the Big 10 now really has a "little 10."

Who's the 4th outside the "little 10"? Michigan State? Wisconsin?
07-20-2019 12:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
zoocrew Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 602
Joined: Mar 2019
Reputation: 17
I Root For: PITT, NAVY, MBB
Location:
Post: #90
RE: Fast forward to 2025...
(07-20-2019 12:26 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(07-20-2019 12:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  I see why you use "little 8." Its a term that was used for decades to describe the Big 10 other than Ohio St. and Michigan. When Penn St. joined they didn't fit in the little 8. But with Maryland and Rutgers, the Big 10 now really has a "little 10."

Who's the 4th outside the "little 10"? Michigan State? Wisconsin?

I assumed Nebraska.
07-20-2019 12:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
zoocrew Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 602
Joined: Mar 2019
Reputation: 17
I Root For: PITT, NAVY, MBB
Location:
Post: #91
RE: Fast forward to 2025...
(07-19-2019 05:49 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  No one really knows BYU situation, mormon church keeps things very quiet. CSU is no successful athletic program, look up their records.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Wouldn’t be surprised if BYU isn’t welcomed into the B12 as a backfill even if they lose half their teams.
07-20-2019 12:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UTEPDallas Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,400
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation: 145
I Root For: UTEP/Penn State
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #92
RE: Fast forward to 2025...
(07-20-2019 12:26 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(07-20-2019 12:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  I see why you use "little 8." Its a term that was used for decades to describe the Big 10 other than Ohio St. and Michigan. When Penn St. joined they didn't fit in the little 8. But with Maryland and Rutgers, the Big 10 now really has a "little 10."

Who's the 4th outside the "little 10"? Michigan State? Wisconsin?

Nebraska.
07-20-2019 12:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Realignment Enthusiast
*

Posts: 1,845
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 80
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: :uoᴉʇɐɔo⌉
Post: #93
RE: Fast forward to 2025...
(07-20-2019 12:30 PM)zoocrew Wrote:  
(07-20-2019 12:26 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(07-20-2019 12:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  I see why you use "little 8." Its a term that was used for decades to describe the Big 10 other than Ohio St. and Michigan. When Penn St. joined they didn't fit in the little 8. But with Maryland and Rutgers, the Big 10 now really has a "little 10."

Who's the 4th outside the "little 10"? Michigan State? Wisconsin?

I assumed Nebraska.

(07-20-2019 12:33 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  
(07-20-2019 12:26 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(07-20-2019 12:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  I see why you use "little 8." Its a term that was used for decades to describe the Big 10 other than Ohio St. and Michigan. When Penn St. joined they didn't fit in the little 8. But with Maryland and Rutgers, the Big 10 now really has a "little 10."

Who's the 4th outside the "little 10"? Michigan State? Wisconsin?

Nebraska.

Hmm, I would have thought they were about 7th at this point, behind MSU, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Maybe 8th if NW has surpassed them.
07-20-2019 12:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 33,979
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 933
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #94
RE: Fast forward to 2025...
(07-20-2019 12:30 PM)zoocrew Wrote:  
(07-20-2019 12:26 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(07-20-2019 12:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  I see why you use "little 8." Its a term that was used for decades to describe the Big 10 other than Ohio St. and Michigan. When Penn St. joined they didn't fit in the little 8. But with Maryland and Rutgers, the Big 10 now really has a "little 10."

Who's the 4th outside the "little 10"? Michigan State? Wisconsin?

I assumed Nebraska.

Nebraska.
07-20-2019 01:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
texoma Online
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 35
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation: 3
I Root For: Collegefootball
Location:
Post: #95
RE: Fast forward to 2025...
(07-19-2019 03:30 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  On TCU, it's not just Patterson, as it was Petersen at Boise State, because the budget is so large, whereas Boise State you see is very far down the list - their slow fade from relevance not that surprising.

$92.8M on sports teams, $39.2M on football, is top 20. Even removing the coaching staff from the equation they have more money in the program than over half the SEC, double that of many P5 schools. They also have no other power school in the DFW market, except obviously Texas who are actually a different market. So I think TCU would be very attractive for a high profile coach when Patterson retires. But it's a program like Michigan State (both Football and Basketball) where the resources are higher and more elite than is perceived, so the success is likely to continue even with inevitable coaching changes.


... I do not place TCU on the same plane as OU and Texas, which are both perennial top 20 programs with long history, flagship schools, and large alumni bases. If on a 10 scale Texas is a 10 in expansion value (in the elite group with Florida, Ohio State, Notre Dame and Penn State in value) and Oklahoma a solid 8.5 or even 9 (We are in high value name brand territory like Wisconsin, Georgia and Washington), then TCU comes in only at a 7, despite being on equal footing in budgetary terms (you are looking at Miami, Michigan State, Stanford value picks).

The only other one that registers is Kansas, but they have been so poor in football, and budgeted so small that they're peers in athletics are Maryland and Wake Forest, or even high G5 schools. As an institution they are top 40 or top 50 among FBS. But that is pretty borderline.

The ranking of the public schools in the "little-8" tells you none have a shot at realignment, as they are all outside the top 50, and excepting KU, none has high AI.
51. Iowa State
53. Oklahoma State
61. West Virginia
62. Kansas State
64. Texas Tech
67. Kansas
Baylor comes in at 31 (the first in "tier-5"), but actually 31-51 ($23-28M) is really a pile of similar budget lower middle of P5, making them more like 51 Iowa State (the last in "tier-5") than TCU, OU and UT (top 20). Baylor also has issues that make them less attractive than their athletic stature, plus they are also not a research school.

So my TCU comments were more in comparison with the other B12 schools. They have separated from the other little-8. They may be like Louisville in the last realignment, the surprise school to have standing (metrics made Louisville a runaway choice over UConn and Cincy, despite bad AI). All I am saying is do not be shocked if they wind up being the 3rd B12 school to move (as to where, I haven't a clue, as they are a non-starter for the B1G and make no sense for the SEC ... they only make some sense going with Texas to the ACC or P12--I don't see Texas going P12 period).

You make some good points about TCU. I agree, they are well funded, but there is more to realignment than that.

You said there are no other P5 schools in the DFW area. That is true, but as a previous TCU poster mentioned, the DFW area is saturated with other fans.

As he said, first is the Cowboys. They overwhelmingly dominate the market. College wise I would rate the number of fans for each school in the DFW area as follows: Texas, OU, A&M, Tech, OSU, then TCU. I do not know why you say that UT is a different market.

Outside of Tarrant County there are very few TCU fans. That can be a problem for TV networks, especially if realignment comes. Although local fan support has increased dramatically under Patterson, it is still sometimes an issue.

I also disagree that none of the Little 8 have a shot at realignment.

IMO the PAC12 would take Texas, Tech, OU and OSU in a heart beat, plus most likely KU and KSU if Texas wanted them. The SEC would take a combination of those with OU and/or Texas. Especially Texas.

The Big10 might very well take OU and KU. Add in Texas and it might be a sure thing. If the Big10 also pulled in Missouri, the SEC would likely take West Virginia as a replacement. If Texas stays put then the SEC might take OU and OSU.

So to say the little 8 have no chance in realignment is just not correct.

You mentioned that TCU may well be the 3rd school taken from the Big12, but you said you have no clue where they might go. You admit the Big10 is a non-starter and the SEC makes no sense and the only possibility is going with Texas to the ACC. Which means TCU is probably going no where.


As for when Patterson retires, I think of Kansas State with out Bill Snyder. You are correct, TCU has the funds to pay top dollar, but TCU like KSU, although they are very different, both are very unique situations. Patterson, like Snyder, is one of a kind and I am not sure TCU can find another.
(This post was last modified: 07-20-2019 04:43 PM by texoma.)
07-20-2019 04:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,571
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 139
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #96
RE: Fast forward to 2025...
(07-20-2019 12:26 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(07-20-2019 12:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  I see why you use "little 8." Its a term that was used for decades to describe the Big 10 other than Ohio St. and Michigan. When Penn St. joined they didn't fit in the little 8. But with Maryland and Rutgers, the Big 10 now really has a "little 10."

Who's the 4th outside the "little 10"? Michigan State? Wisconsin?

Really, such lack of decorum. The Big Ten does not engage in invidious games of distinguishing between Really Big and Medium Big programs ... it just declares that, as the name says, there are Ten Big Programs.

Who the little four might be is anyone's guess, and is probably a different answer between FB and BBall season, but during FB season I'd guess Rutgers, Illinois, Indiana and Maryland.
Today 07:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,320
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 159
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #97
RE: Fast forward to 2025...
(07-19-2019 03:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-18-2019 08:33 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  I have removed the "not allocated by gender/sport" as that is overhead.

No, it's not overhead. It's often the place where an AD hides expenditures that really just benefit one sport (you know which sport) but are claimed to benefit the athletic department as a whole.

It's a mixture of things. I removed it to get a more apples to apples comparison. Yes, schools tend to hide Football costs here in order to claim it's a profit center, especially at G5 schools. P5 schools who are in better financial shape do that much less.

So what is in that category? Some examples:

At Cal, the Stadium retrofit and upgrade debt service is a large chunk of the $40M in that category. The money really is not available for use. Maryland also has a large debt service. I am not sure what all is going on at Kansas and their $111M, definitely some major facilities work and probably a one time charge in there; Clearly the $19M on football reflects the actual situation, compared to the $62M Alabama (Nick Saban literally has more staff members for Football than players, and they are well paid).

Other schools athletic department marketing, ESPN charges for TV production, severance pay for fired coaches (sometimes 3+ years of salary is paid). All schools the AD, his/her staff and things like compliance are in there. Some include pension liabilities, etc.

Now are there some shell games going on? Sure, especially at G5 schools and FCS where football proponents have to beat back critics that the program is costing the school money -- UConn's move to the Big East is a backhanded admission that Football is a big money pit, even though the official balance sheet looks break even for the sport; as things like stadium and facilities for football are buried in the "not by sport" category.

But the numbers do seem to reflect the product on the field or on the court, when you look strictly at the specifically dedicated money for Football and Basketball (even more so than Football).

[Image: EAGXyTpUEAAFHzY.jpg:large]


tOSU budget might be inflated for Thad Matta severance (possibly categorized under MBB and not overhead), but then again tOSU does pay well. Seeing Colorado, Cal, Stanford and USC lumped in with Penn State, Boston College, Seton Hall and a bunch of high Mid-Majors like SLU, San Diego State, Temple, SMU, BYU and VCU reflects basketball reality. Notre Dame on the other hand is probably too low a category.

So I think removing the overhead does match where programs actually are in the specific sports. It indicates the actual money they have allocated to that sport. KU has a huge total budget, but almost the lowest FB specific budget of any P5 school, and it shows on the field. Cal and Maryland are pinched by debt, and it shows on the field. FIU has a total budget that is very high G5, but the actual MBB and FB budgets are smaller than FAU with a tiny budget, and that reflects what we see on the field.

Some great coaches (Mike Leach belongs in this category) overcome everything and outperform the budget limits. But the results are pretty clear, the chart is mostly accurate.

BTW, in the big picture the C-USA schools are all nothing to write home about. No rearranging is going to make them multi-bid or improve their playoff chances.
(This post was last modified: Today 01:38 PM by Stugray2.)
Today 01:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: Rob from NJ, 5 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.