Forbes: Most Valuable Football Teams: Michigan #5
1 Texas
2 Notre Dame
3 Alabama
4 LSU
5 Michigan
Link http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2013/12/18/college-footballs-mos…;
December 19th, 2013 at 2:09 AM ^
Alternate unis? Dynamic pricing? General admission? Rawk music and in-game ads?
I dearly hope Michigan will always be in the top 5 on this list but you act like it's some law of nature. It's not. Programs can rise but they can also fall. You know who else had a glorious first half of the 20th century? Minnesota. 6 National championships and 16 Big 10 championships by 1941.
Michigan football is what it is today because of one Bo Schembechler. Dave Brandon talks the talk but has not yet walked the walk.
December 18th, 2013 at 3:53 PM ^
Jake Butt, Kyle Kalis, and Willie Henry are all first team Big Ten freshmen.
December 18th, 2013 at 6:34 PM ^
December 19th, 2013 at 9:42 AM ^
Everytime I watched Michigan, I was underwhelmed by Kalis.
December 18th, 2013 at 3:53 PM ^
An interesting and somewhat related discussion had a link in the article - Forbes also looked at the most cost efficient teams in FBS play (HERE). They took football expenses at each school over the last couple years and then essentially came up with cost per win numbers. The top few are pretty interesting really.
The best school is Cincinnati - $1,463,280 per win against expenses of $40.2 million over the studied period. The next best is Kansas State actually - $1529,494 per win over $40.6 million in expenses. After that, Stanford, Baylor and Oregon. The most inefficient school by their measure was Kansas at $8,008,689 per win against expenses of $48.1 million.
December 18th, 2013 at 3:56 PM ^
We only played six home games and, I suspect, the revenue from the Alabama game didn't come close to making up for the game having been played at a neutral site.
December 18th, 2013 at 3:59 PM ^
December 18th, 2013 at 6:39 PM ^
December 18th, 2013 at 3:59 PM ^
From a pure profit standpoint, Michigan is #2 ($56 million) to Texas ($89 million), so DB is delivering from a bottom line perspective. Fitting for a former CEO and no doubt how he's presenting it throughout the university.
December 18th, 2013 at 4:01 PM ^
in LSU's spot, but otherwise what I expected when I clicked.
December 18th, 2013 at 4:07 PM ^
If only that meant more winning because, quite frankly, that is all that matters.
December 18th, 2013 at 4:12 PM ^
I think the last time we were ranked #5 in football was September 1st, 2007.
I don't think I like being ranked #5 anymore.
December 18th, 2013 at 5:56 PM ^
December 18th, 2013 at 6:52 PM ^
December 18th, 2013 at 4:23 PM ^
Win and we will rise on every 'good' list
December 18th, 2013 at 4:36 PM ^
This list just exacerbates my frustration... Year after year we are Top 5 in value (i've seen Michigan as low as 2 in the past 5 years), and we are no where near that on the field...
Ugh. One day.
December 18th, 2013 at 5:32 PM ^
So, why does the fifth most valuable team in college football have one shared National Championship since 1948?
I don't want to sound impatient, but I went to my first game in 1960 and have watched Michigan have one glorious year: 1997. The rest have been fraught with disappointment. In that time, I watched Florida State and Miami develop from perennial tomato cans into multiple National Champions.
I am 61; with reasonable luck I should be able to live another 20 years or so. Is it too much to ask to see one more National Championship for the Wolverines in that time period?
December 18th, 2013 at 5:45 PM ^
This is Michigan! We win without cheating and that's good enough for me dammit! You will take your 9-3 with a bowl loss and like it!
Signed,
Fans that are in denial that we've underachieved for a long time
December 18th, 2013 at 6:29 PM ^
I actually laughed out loud.
December 18th, 2013 at 7:36 PM ^
December 18th, 2013 at 7:37 PM ^
Maybe you should start a petition.
December 18th, 2013 at 7:34 PM ^
If you have been disappointed in every season since 1997, I suggest you find another pastime. If you'll be miserable every year you don't see a national title, you'll get a lot of misery out of any team.
December 18th, 2013 at 8:51 PM ^
If you don't think Michigan has underachieved since 1948 and since our last national title in 1997 then I don't know what to tell you.
December 19th, 2013 at 8:13 AM ^
Judging from that sob story, I take it your not a Lion's fan or you would have went full-Emo on us.
December 18th, 2013 at 6:16 PM ^
Michigan spends more on football scholarships than any other public school on our list.
It has long been my understanding that the Michigan Athletic Department pays out-of-state tuition to the University's general fund for every full-scholarship athlete. Regardless of domicile-in-fact. Is that correct? If so, why? Why pay out-of-state rates for Cam Gordon, Devin Gardner, Desmond Morgan, RJS, Norfleet, Taylor, Lewis, Ross, Hollowell, Rawls, Morris, Shallman, Dawson, etc., etc.?
December 18th, 2013 at 6:36 PM ^
The only thing I've been able to find is this article (and even then it's just in the comments)
http://www.annarbor.com/news/brandon-on-athletic-department-myths/
December 18th, 2013 at 6:43 PM ^
I literally cannot think of a single reason why that makes sense unless there's something related to tax laws and non profit entities that I don't understand. If they do that for all the athletes, I have to imagine that costs the AD tons of money. I'm sure it makes sense otherwise they wouldn't do it but I do wonder why it makes sense to do that.
December 18th, 2013 at 7:18 PM ^
When was the first sustainable surplus to donate back into the general fund? It might not make sense when the AD is kicking back eight figures, but perhaps it did when the surplus wasn't an expected thing and OOS tuition approximately equaled the amount of the surplus.
Also if we're talking much further back than 10-15 years or so, that could have just been an "might as well do it as a gesture" thing before tuition started to really spiral.
December 18th, 2013 at 8:13 PM ^
December 18th, 2013 at 8:20 PM ^
But if this was something that got started in, say, the 1980's it makes more sense than today, either because of tuition inflation not being what it is or because the surplus was presumably exponentially smaller.
December 18th, 2013 at 6:29 PM ^
The last time Michigan was ranked 5th (or better) in an actual football poll?
Preseason 2007 :(
December 18th, 2013 at 6:43 PM ^
December 18th, 2013 at 9:59 PM ^
December 18th, 2013 at 7:32 PM ^
December 18th, 2013 at 7:34 PM ^
Odds are we have a record of 11-1 and we just won the B1G. In the future we will be waiting for our first playoff game. I hope this is where we are in a couple years.
I was surprised LSU at number 4 as well.
December 18th, 2013 at 7:36 PM ^
The problem being there are probably 20+ fanbases that feel they are entitled to be top 5.
December 18th, 2013 at 7:49 PM ^
Man if only ND joined the BIG we'd be #1 on this list.. Oh wait..
December 18th, 2013 at 7:51 PM ^
You probably would be. You'd probably be playing in a better bowl than the Pinstripe Bowl against Rutgers, probably the least deserving bowl qualifier.
I'm interested in why you think you'd make less money in the Big Ten? Seriously.
December 18th, 2013 at 8:31 PM ^