CollegeFootballPoll.com Message Board

Well, not counting the amount that Auburn pays for players, here are the numbers that schools pay for their football programs.

http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/1 ... ama-irish/

Here are the numbers from some of the schools that are followed by us (in order from most money spent):
Ohio State 31.76 million (1st nationally and 1st in Big 10)
Arkansas 22 million (10th nationally and 6th in SEC)
Iowa 18.46 million (18th nationally and 4th in Big 10)
Michigan 18.32 million (20th nationally and 5th in Big 10)
Georgia 18.30 million (21st nationally and 7th in SEC)
Florida State 16.34 million (33rd nationally and 4th in ACC)
Virginia Tech 16.30 million (35th nationally and 6th in ACC)
West Virginia 14.33 million (43rd nationally and 5th in the Big East)
Purdue 11.82 million (62nd nationally and 11th in Big 10)
BYU 10.31 million (67th nationally)
Hawaii 8.25 million (78th nationally and 1st in WAC)
Boise State 6.85 million (88th nationally and 2nd in the WAC)

Ohio State tops the list and Louisiana-Monroe is dead last (2.98 million).

But look at the revenue and who has the highest profit margin.

Ohio State funds 36 varsity sports- ten more then anyone in the nation, given the cost of scholarships it isn't suprising they spend more than anyone - they do run in the black too.

So revealing...Boise is 88th...which happens to be their SOS....now we know where SOS comes from....follow the money.

Ohio State isn't first in SOS, but we do help the SOS of anyone who plays us, generally. Maybe they aren't number one because the spend everything they make.

That is such a bogus article.....

Not surprisingly, the least successful conferences also feature the programs with the least amount of funds. Of the nation's 18 football programs with the smallest budgets, six are in the Mid-American, six are in the Sun Belt and five are in the Western Athletic Conference.

Least successful to whom? Some standard of trying to achieve some status nationally that no one cares about? You can put whatever criteria you want on success, but this author assumes his opinion is accepted as fact. Well, it is not. The smaller conferences have been very successful for their purpose. The fact they have no visions of grandeur may be their demise, not the fact they spend more on education and less on football. Spence has many times noted Ohio State funds many programs of the school. I know for a fact that is true at Boise. Certainly not to the same monetary extent, but very close to the same affect. And what this chart does not show how much money is spent on the overall athletics. University of Oregon may be 55th....but the amount spent there as gifts for facilities is beyond my comprehension...all gifted.

donovan wrote:That is such a bogus article.....

Not surprisingly, the least successful conferences also feature the programs with the least amount of funds. Of the nation's 18 football programs with the smallest budgets, six are in the Mid-American, six are in the Sun Belt and five are in the Western Athletic Conference.

Least successful to whom? Some standard of trying to achieve some status nationally that no one cares about? You can put whatever criteria you want on success, but this author assumes his opinion is accepted as fact. Well, it is not. The smaller conferences have been very successful for their purpose. The fact they have no visions of grandeur may be their demise, not the fact they spend more on education and less on football. Spence has many times noted Ohio State funds many programs of the school. I know for a fact that is true at Boise. Certainly not to the same monetary extent, but very close to the same affect. And what this chart does not show how much money is spent on the overall athletics. University of Oregon may be 55th....but the amount spent there as gifts for facilities is beyond my comprehension...all gifted.

That is true. The amount "gifted" is a huge difference between schools. I think funding more and more sports as you make more and more money is giving back to the people who play. Scholarships are what it is all about. I get that you have to spend more on the cash cows, but schools IMO should put money into finding as many scholarships as is possible because that was the purpose of all of this in the beginning.

Doss,

Thanks for the link/info. I still would like to see a link to what is paid under the table to the athletes!

GoBoilers wrote:Doss,

Thanks for the link/info. I still would like to see a link to what is paid under the table to the athletes!

Well I have no link for that but I am pretty sure Auburn would be #1 on that list.

Dossenator wrote:

GoBoilers wrote:Doss,

Thanks for the link/info. I still would like to see a link to what is paid under the table to the athletes!

Well I have no link for that but I am pretty sure Auburn would be #1 on that list.

You never know. I think we would all be appalled by the list.

Spence wrote:

Dossenator wrote:

GoBoilers wrote:Doss,

Thanks for the link/info. I still would like to see a link to what is paid under the table to the athletes!

Well I have no link for that but I am pretty sure Auburn would be #1 on that list.

You never know. I think we would all be appalled by the list.

I think you'd have all D1 schools on the list of payola. 'Cept there would be a HUGE difference from top to the middle and very little at the bottom. Depending upon one's perspective it is a big problem or a minor one. A lot have their heads in the sand!