Started By
Message
Graphical analysis of 2011 football and athletic revenues
Posted on 12/5/12 at 8:36 pm
Posted on 12/5/12 at 8:36 pm
I have seen this posted in less useful formats, thought I would form a graph it for y'all. 
I am not posting this to flame the schools below Arkansas.
In the interest of fairness, I added the $12M exit fee from the Big 12 to both school's revenues. That's why Texas A&M and Missouri are not sorted properly.
If you are unhappy with this graph, don't bitch at me. Donate to your school or check the source, but it's legit
Enjoy!
I am not posting this to flame the schools below Arkansas.
In the interest of fairness, I added the $12M exit fee from the Big 12 to both school's revenues. That's why Texas A&M and Missouri are not sorted properly.
If you are unhappy with this graph, don't bitch at me. Donate to your school or check the source, but it's legit
Enjoy!
7
Posted on 12/5/12 at 8:36 pm to Porker Face
This post was edited on 2/17/13 at 8:43 pm
Posted on 12/5/12 at 10:56 pm to Porker Face
Nice sail.
Posted on 12/5/12 at 10:57 pm to Porker Face
sorry for bein rich
Posted on 12/5/12 at 11:17 pm to Porker Face
LOL Mizzou is poor! 
Posted on 12/5/12 at 11:17 pm to Porker Face
you sail so good
Posted on 12/6/12 at 7:31 am to Porker Face
A&M didn't "pay" an exit fee, we just forfeit some of the money we had coming our way from the Big XII. It's not like we cut them a check.
Posted on 12/6/12 at 11:14 am to Porker Face
Your chart isn't labeled very well, so I did this for you.
How can a team have a zero for total athletic dept. profits/losses? Assume insufficient data for the study in those cases?
Interestingly, when ranked by profits and losses, the data shows five or six distinct categories:
The highly profitable: TX, MI, AL, & OhioSt ($34-$25 million in profits).
The very profitable: Notre Dame, Iowa, LSU, Arkansas, FSU, Penn State, & Kansas State ($19 - $12 million in profits).
The Moderately Profitable: Texas Tech, Auburn, Florida, Washington, Oklahoma, Virginia, Michigan State, Nebraska, Indiana, & Oklahoma State ($10 - $5 million in profits.
Those not operating at a loss: 41 schools who are making some money ($5 million - $200k in profits).
The complete losers: 54 schools whose athletic departments cost the institutions and their students money.
Also interesting to note: of the 118 schools on that list, only 18 had total athletic department profits equal to/greater than Nick Saban's individual salary.
So, Porker, South Kansas isn't the hind teet, but it isn't at the front of the litter either. I never would have thought that y'all were more profitable than Florida, Auburn, Oklahoma, Nebraska, etc., though.
How can a team have a zero for total athletic dept. profits/losses? Assume insufficient data for the study in those cases?
Interestingly, when ranked by profits and losses, the data shows five or six distinct categories:
The highly profitable: TX, MI, AL, & OhioSt ($34-$25 million in profits).
The very profitable: Notre Dame, Iowa, LSU, Arkansas, FSU, Penn State, & Kansas State ($19 - $12 million in profits).
The Moderately Profitable: Texas Tech, Auburn, Florida, Washington, Oklahoma, Virginia, Michigan State, Nebraska, Indiana, & Oklahoma State ($10 - $5 million in profits.
Those not operating at a loss: 41 schools who are making some money ($5 million - $200k in profits).
The complete losers: 54 schools whose athletic departments cost the institutions and their students money.
Also interesting to note: of the 118 schools on that list, only 18 had total athletic department profits equal to/greater than Nick Saban's individual salary.
So, Porker, South Kansas isn't the hind teet, but it isn't at the front of the litter either. I never would have thought that y'all were more profitable than Florida, Auburn, Oklahoma, Nebraska, etc., though.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News