bo_lives

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.

Joined: 04/10/2011

MGoPoints: 7867

LSAClassOf2000

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.  

Joined: 01/07/2011

MGoPoints: 130610

bluebyyou

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.

Joined: 09/07/2009

MGoPoints: 18562

Victor Valiant

December 18th, 2013 at 3:59 PM ^

Very surprised a team like LSU is in the top 5, let alone ahead of Michigan. I would have expected a team like USC instead of them on the list. Always thought of LSU as kind of a niche southern team.

Joined: 11/23/2013

MGoPoints: 4491

WolvinLA2

December 18th, 2013 at 6:39 PM ^

USC isn't that big of a money maker. They don't fill their stadium (that they don't even own), have a smaller and more regional alumni/fan base and they sell far less apparel than the schools on that list. I have a bunch of friends and family (in-laws) who went to USC, and I bought more apparel from MDen this year than they all have combined. I wouldn't expect SC to be up with the top teams in that regard.

Joined: 11/13/2009

MGoPoints: 58191

MGoWorld

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. 

Joined: 06/20/2013

MGoPoints: 151

flysociety3

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.

Joined: 05/10/2009

MGoPoints: 1617

Tater

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?

 

Joined: 08/13/2008

MGoPoints: 30584

UMxWolverines

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

Joined: 03/01/2009

MGoPoints: 65429

Cold War

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.

Joined: 01/15/2012

MGoPoints: -3144

Section 1

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.?

Joined: 06/29/2009

MGoPoints: 16535

goblue20111

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. 

Joined: 10/31/2010

MGoPoints: 7251

justingoblue

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. 

Joined: 11/16/2010

MGoPoints: 29741

uminks

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.

Joined: 11/10/2009

MGoPoints: 32040