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 8:41 pm to JDM1992
I think everyone on this board agrees with you, whether they admit it or not
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 12/5/12 at 11:18 pm to Latarian
I'm diggin the big one sig pic...perfect for the flagship. Glad to see more posts from Arkansas folks. Much more fun around here with yall.
Posted on 12/6/12 at 5:29 am to Tigerinasia
This was with the crappy B12 TV contract dollars from 2011 I assume. Should look much better for Mizzou in 2012 with SEC TV dollars, higher attendance, and higher ticket prices.
Posted on 12/6/12 at 7:22 am to RocketBallz
Meh, those numbers ebb and flow year by year.
South Carolina has been way up there for the past decade, then we paid off a lot of bonds and loans this past year plus we added a new 8 million dollar mega video board and spent another ten million or so on improvements around the stadium.
We're making money and spending it where it should be spent and have some of the nicest facilities in the country in the process. I'm down with that.
PS: I'd like to see that graph compared side by side with other major conferences, graphed in the same fashion, from around the country. Just the other three or four top conferences would do. It would put it all into a better perspective.
South Carolina has been way up there for the past decade, then we paid off a lot of bonds and loans this past year plus we added a new 8 million dollar mega video board and spent another ten million or so on improvements around the stadium.
We're making money and spending it where it should be spent and have some of the nicest facilities in the country in the process. I'm down with that.
PS: I'd like to see that graph compared side by side with other major conferences, graphed in the same fashion, from around the country. Just the other three or four top conferences would do. It would put it all into a better perspective.
This post was edited on 12/6/12 at 7:24 am
Posted on 12/6/12 at 7:26 am to scrooster
these numbers include Mizzou's Big12 Buyout. MU's football revenue should be about $25million better than that after the first year in the SEC.
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 7:36 am to scrooster
I bet the speakers for piped in techno music aren't cheap either.
Posted on 12/6/12 at 11:05 am to Cooter Davenport
quote:
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.
Complete and utter semantics. The difference is totally inconsequential
Posted on 12/6/12 at 11:09 am to Porker Face
quote:
Complete and utter semantics. The difference is totally inconsequential
guess that aggie business school is no where near as good as the walton business school
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.
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.
Posted on 12/6/12 at 12:54 pm to I Ham That I Ham
quote:meth takes a lot out of the wallet.
LOL Mizzou is poor!
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News