Performance vs. Spending

[KY1WING]

Interesting analysis ...

See where your favorite team and its opponents rank ...

http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...8/ncaa-football-teams-costs-spending-expenses

 

[RobertWiese]

It's really interesting to have an analysis based on how the spending made effective for teams through hired performers. But one ting to be said here is that, spending high doesn't guarantee you top position and spending less means you will be positioned lower either. I can get you clear with this point by just putting the example of ongoing English Premier League standings. See the very less paid Leicester City is on top of the table while big spenders like Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, etc., are standing below them. I'm working for a resume consultancy (here) and my favorite hobby is to watch sport and other games events. Truly this kind of fairy tale showing from small teams are truly encouraging us as the viewers of true sports.

Anyway, thanks for the source link and it really a great and interesting move through the statistics there.

 

[rock264]

This is derived from the Department of Education's Title IX website.

What is not explained, and is important, is that spending for some programs includes debt service on facilities and in other programs, it does not. It depends on how state law treats responsibility for debt service.

 

[jauk11]

Very interesting numbers, indeed.

Also pretty confusing, apparently the lower the spending number is the more you invest in your program. Bama is below Auburn in football spending, and I read where Bama's football staff's salary is $50,000,000------and they still cleared $60,000,000 while the rest of their athletic programs lost $20,000,000------big business indeed.

Here is the list of the spending ranking for the SEC schools from the report:

Auburn: 2.5 (not sure 2.5 what, but the lower the number the more you spent)
Alabama: 5.9
Florida: 11.3
Arkansas: 12.8
LSU: 13.2
Georgia: 16.8
S Carolina 20.7
Tennessee 25.7
A&M 30.6
Vandy 36.7
Missouri 49.6
Kentucky 51.5
Ole Miss 55.1
MSU 64.1

Some exceptions of course, but in general you get what you pay for------and a lot of these numbers are misleading, to say the least. While we are so proud of our recent renovations (the former "recruiting room" was an insult to every UK football fan AND we reduced capacity to fall just above Vandy in capacity------and soon behind city college) which cost about $120M Arkansas just spent $400M on athletic improvements (in place when BP off TWO BCS bowl wins only had a couple of 5.8 four star commits) and A&M spent $400M on their stadium. while TU recently spent $80M on their 100,000 plus stadium. Even MSU, at the bottom of the totem pole (by a lot) just passed us in stadium capacity, AND, while both Misses are behind us in spending Mississippi has LOADS more football talent in state than us (Joker tried very hard for four star Bumphus, that killed us when we played them). When everyone was complaining about MSU "upsetting" us in 09 they had over 20 four star commits the previous four years, ALL OF THEM from in state. We might have had above our normal at the time, one in state that didn't live up to expectations and two JC transfers from California.

So, while we are MUCH higher than before because of the recent "huge" investment in football (always at the very top in basketball) I would love to see where mitch's investment in football was before the strike, I can't believe we were anything but a solid LAST at that time. You should know some of the miserable numbers, I won't bore you by posting them again.

It was truly unbelievable to me considering how much money the "money cow" was bringing in with bare minimum investment, and the FACT that football was OBVIOUSLY emerging as the money sport. The other SEC football teams kept our athletics afloat.

Now we are still giving away a HUGE advantage to our biggest rivals, Transfer U and Thug U, with giving HALF the COA stipend LEGALLY that they do, instead of doubling ours like Bama did in a New York minute when Auburn (surprise, Auburn, TU, and City College among the highest in the nation) came up with twice their allotment.

The next BIG step UK has to take to be competitive with our Rivals, and you never read anything about it on here any more. Penny wise and pound foolish-----AGAIN. Bama football cleared SIXTY MILLION last year.

No wonder mitch got away with murder for a full decade------and he did come very close to murdering our football program before the strike.

 

[Deeeefense]

I knew before I looked at this that Boise would beat everyone on the chart. Oregon does well too but I wonder if "spending" is just what the school spends, or what Phil Knight spends as well?

 

[SanAntonioCat_rivals376502]

There are various increased seating plans for CWS including a facility on the north side to match the one on the south side. However, before the "mine's bigger than yours" talk can start, the product on the field has to consistently improve and win. Until then what we see is what we get.

 

[vhcat70]

"The accounting methods many of these schools use are quite dishonest. Schools will report inflated costs in order to keep their reported profits lower, so they can cry poor when asking taxpayers and students for financial assistance. To inflate costs, schools willcharge their athletic programs for things like "overhead," "university fundraising," and even "library renovations." And when athletic programs give out scholarships, programs can get charged the full price for an out-of-state student even though the marginal cost to the school for bringing on an extra student is minimal."

Hello, new UK Science Building to the tune of $80M.

 

[vhcat70]

There are various increased seating plans for CWS including a facility on the north side to match the one on the south side.

Doing on the north side what was done on the south side will decrease seating capacity.

 

[SanAntonioCat_rivals376502]

Doing on the north side what was done on the south side will decrease seating capacity.

Not really. What seats on upper north side are lost are ones that aren't selling anyway. Those "lost" seats will be used by those who purchase suites.

 

[vhcat70]

Not really. What seats on upper north side are lost are ones that aren't selling anyway. Those "lost" seats will be used by those who purchase suites.

You switched in mid-argument from increased capacity to increased attendance. Fewer seats as now on the south side will definitely decrease capacity. What that type change would do to attendance depends on if we're filling CWS when that same change is made & how many more deep pockets are out there.

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

Very interesting numbers, indeed.

Also pretty confusing, apparently the lower the spending number is the more you invest in your program. Bama is below Auburn in football spending, and I read where Bama's football staff's salary is $50,000,000------and they still cleared $60,000,000 while the rest of their athletic programs lost $20,000,000------big business indeed.

Here is the list of the spending ranking for the SEC schools from the report:

Auburn: 2.5 (not sure 2.5 what, but the lower the number the more you spent)
Alabama: 5.9
Florida: 11.3
Arkansas: 12.8
LSU: 13.2
Georgia: 16.8
S Carolina 20.7
Tennessee 25.7
A&M 30.6
Vandy 36.7
Missouri 49.6
Kentucky 51.5
Ole Miss 55.1
MSU 64.1

Some exceptions of course, but in general you get what you pay for------and a lot of these numbers are misleading, to say the least. While we are so proud of our recent renovations (the former "recruiting room" was an insult to every UK football fan AND we reduced capacity to fall just above Vandy in capacity------and soon behind city college) which cost about $120M Arkansas just spent $400M on athletic improvements (in place when BP off TWO BCS bowl wins only had a couple of 5.8 four star commits) and A&M spent $400M on their stadium. while TU recently spent $80M on their 100,000 plus stadium. Even MSU, at the bottom of the totem pole (by a lot) just passed us in stadium capacity, AND, while both Misses are behind us in spending Mississippi has LOADS more football talent in state than us (Joker tried very hard for four star Bumphus, that killed us when we played them). When everyone was complaining about MSU "upsetting" us in 09 they had over 20 four star commits the previous four years, ALL OF THEM from in state. We might have had above our normal at the time, one in state that didn't live up to expectations and two JC transfers from California.

So, while we are MUCH higher than before because of the recent "huge" investment in football (always at the very top in basketball) I would love to see where mitch's investment in football was before the strike, I can't believe we were anything but a solid LAST at that time. You should know some of the miserable numbers, I won't bore you by posting them again.

It was truly unbelievable to me considering how much money the "money cow" was bringing in with bare minimum investment, and the FACT that football was OBVIOUSLY emerging as the money sport. The other SEC football teams kept our athletics afloat.

Now we are still giving away a HUGE advantage to our biggest rivals, Transfer U and Thug U, with giving HALF the COA stipend LEGALLY that they do, instead of doubling ours like Bama did in a New York minute when Auburn (surprise, Auburn, TU, and City College among the highest in the nation) came up with twice their allotment.

The next BIG step UK has to take to be competitive with our Rivals, and you never read anything about it on here any more. Penny wise and pound foolish-----AGAIN. Bama football cleared SIXTY MILLION last year.

No wonder mitch got away with murder for a full decade------and he did come very close to murdering our football program before the strike.

Sad to say I looked at that chart for about 20 min and I had no more idea at the end of that time at what I was looking at than I did before I seen it. Why not just put what each win cost or each star you recruited and the I could have understood it.

 

[jauk11]

Sad to say I looked at that chart for about 20 min and I had no more idea at the end of that time at what I was looking at than I did before I seen it. Why not just put what each win cost or each star you recruited and the I could have understood it.

LOL, as I said, pretty confusing, but I tried to draw some general conclusions, like UK is close to the bottom of the SEC in football spending-----still. Hard to believe we are behind Vandy though, although they always seem to have pretty good teams in the other sports. There does seem to be some correlation though, ND, Texas, So Cal, and the other SEC schools near the top in spending.

If we are that low in spending now I would hate to see where we were before the wakeup call to the AD, I would love to see the numbers from a few years ago.

 

[kykats]

If we demonstrate a desire to lower capacity again I will NEVER buy another ticket. The lack of support for football under MB is abysmal. We should never fall below or be equal to UL in anything football or basketball related. Lowering capacity was STUPID. We should cultivate new fans not discard seats not sold. Dumbest athletic administration in history of college sports is UK football

 

[SanAntonioCat_rivals376502]

Sad to say I looked at that chart for about 20 min and I had no more idea at the end of that time at what I was looking at than I did before I seen it. Why not just put what each win cost or each star you recruited and the I could have understood it.

Winning brings out plenty of deep pockets to fill suites in a structure similar to th

If we demonstrate a desire to lower capacity again I will NEVER buy another ticket. The lack of support for football under MB is abysmal. We should never fall below or be equal to UL in anything football or basketball related. Lowering capacity was STUPID. We should cultivate new fans not discard seats not sold. Dumbest athletic administration in history of college sports is UK football

I'm sure you will be missed.