Started By
Message
re: Graphical analysis of 2011 football and athletic revenues
Posted on 12/6/12 at 11:14 am to Porker Face
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.
3
Posted on 12/6/12 at 12:22 pm to HarryBalzack
quote:
Your chart isn't labeled very well, so I did this for you.
You mean you opened up data in excel and highlighted some cells! Thanks so much!
quote:
How can a team have a zero for total athletic dept. profits/losses?
I assumed they are running in the red but they didn't want to put that in their tables. It's a pretty safe assumption BTW
Posted on 12/6/12 at 12:23 pm to HarryBalzack
quote:
South Kansas
You talking about Oklahoma?? Maybe this image will help you
Posted on 12/6/12 at 12:27 pm to HarryBalzack
quote:
South Kansas isn't the hind teet, but it isn't at the front of the litter either.
Yea Oklahoma is only moderately profitable
As far as Arkansas only two SEC schools are more or equally profitable.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News