Big-spendin' Bucks
UM might not be spending enough $ on football:
http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/06/29/big-spending-ohio-state-cou…
There are some impressive numbers in that article.
Of note: "Meanwhile, West Virginia has been the nation's most successful school when playing against teams with bigger budgets. The Mountaineers' success rate against schools with a greater financial commitment is unprecedented."
Could we give RichRod some credit for that? :)
o$u.
dude, you should probably give it up for the day. regroup and come back tomorrow
why? isn't this site like golf? isn't it better to have less points?
Yes. Do us all a favor and keep it up.*
*because you will soon feel the wrath of the banhammer
what's a "banhammer?"
That looks scary! do you have to have a certain amount of points to not be banhammer'd?
BTW this was in response to the guy who got banned, thus his posts aren't visable anymore and now this just kind of makes no sense as it wasn't in response to Nieme08.
^^^^^
Not mean't for the OP I guess the banhammer can come down pretty quick
The fact that OSU spends almost twice as much as UofM on football is shocking. I imagine these numbers are reverberating a bit through Columbus (and Ann Arbor). No question that OSU has owned the B10 over the past 5 years, but it takes some of the luster off of Tressel. They arguably bought some of those wins.
At the same time, if Michigan wants to get back to the top, we might have to open the checkbook. Not sure what it is we are not spending money on that OSU is, but we cannot expect to compete head to head with anyone over the long term when they are pouring nearly twice as much into the sport.
I did read recently that UM has spent the most of any D1 school on travel costs for recruiting (football). I'll try to find the article and post the link.
unfortuantely, it's not paying off.
-disregard- this was in response to the guy who apparently got banned
Stern....but fair.
Indeed.
I am not an expert on DoE datasets - but there is clearly something weird going on there. There is no way that Iowa spends more on its football program than Michigan does. I think there might be underlying accounting issues regarding which school counts what item in a certain way or not.
OSU has the most football revenue and has the largest single campus (by enrollment) in the country - so it should be no surprise that they spend the most on football. However, I am guessing that other top 10 spenders (which includes Michigan) would be within 10-15% of the OSU level.
OSU looks way out of wack; Iowa, also, given the size of its overall Athletics Dept. budget.
UofM actually is not that far below most of the elite teams in the country, maybe $3-4 million, and about half of that can be explained by coaches' salaries.
TX, which has by far the largest Athletic Dept. budget, spent only $22 million on football. That makes me believe you are probably right and there is something in OSU's accounting (IA's too) that is inflating its numbers.
Every institution has different accounting practices. Everytime one of these reports comes out, reporters go crazy writing stories pretending that UM's $XXX is in anyway related to Oregon's $XXX. They aren't.
I want to use this article as more ammo in my hatred of osu, but i can't. it doesn't say the money comes from selling drugs or kitten grinding operations. it doesn't say that they money goes to buying sexy sexy whores for football players.
it does say that osu has only lost 10 games in five years and this makes me nothing but sad :(
...since they'd have to be imported from outside Ohio to be double sexy.
I remember reading a couple of years ago that OSU was massively in debt due to its recent facilities construction (Value City Arena, renovations to the Horseshoe, and some others). They were like $200M in debt, and just servicing it was costing $15-20M a year. If that money is listed as "football" spending, that would help to explain it.
Ah, this would make sense. I was digging while you were answering.
This almost certainly why. Actual day-to-day operations wouldn't cost anywhere near that.
That's pretty staggering. What the heck are they spending money on?
I suppose coaching staff salary would be a decent chunk of that; Tressel made $3.0M in 2008 and the assistants the were making $1.8M total in 2009 (I doubt they received raises during the recession). So, $5.0M-ish on salaries. Still, that's got to be within $1M of what we spend total.
Football operations have to be on par at M, if anything a sholarship here is worth more than a scholarship there in terms of tuition (guessing there). Food, travel, gear...we shouldn't be skimping on that stuff.
How do they spend an extra $14M?
I could very well be wrong, but I would guess that it's an accounting anomaly. I don't know if non-revenue sports are split out or how the cost of facilities is accounted for; the WHAC is a gigantic, expensive facility that provides services to most of the athletic teams - but primarily football. Similarly, they may have put the servicing cost of renovations on the 'Shoe into the football liabilities. No matter what, though, we can all agree that the football program here costs a ton of money. The only saving grace (if there is one) is that it's a self-sustaining program. I do find the notion that OSU has bought a lot of wins to be a little ridiculous. Certainly the money and facilities make a difference in terms of bringing in talent. On the other hand, the correlation between spending and winning isn't exactly great. There are bad teams that spend a lot of money, and there are good teams that are thrifty.
I admit, saying that OSU "bought" some of their wins probably overstates the impact. But, the correlation between money spent and success is clearly there.
If you look at the spending within each conference, the teams that spend the most tend to be the teams at the top of the conference in terms of wins. For example, in the B10, the top spenders are OSU, IA, WI, PSU, MI. Allowing for MI as an anomaly due to the conversion to a new system the past two years, these are the teams that have done the best in the conference over the past 3-5 years. The same is generally true for the other conferences, though there are some anomolies (e.g., Auburn, WVU). And, if you compare conferences, the SEC, B10 and B12 -- arguably the strongest conferences over the past 3-5 years -- appear to spend the most money. You can always find outliers, but success does appear correlated to spending.
Edit: Additionally, many of the outliers probably can be explained by the short time period used for the analysis. My guess is if you looked at the amount of money a team like Auburn spent over the past 30 years along with its performance and compared that to WVU, you would find that Auburn is at the high end for both and WVU is in the middle or at the low end for both. You would likely find a correlation.
are you saying that it seems the better teams and those striving to be better are spending more money on their football teams?
they used up all of their budget on Pryor. $$$$$$$$$$ :P
Recruit$$$$$$$$$$$$$ don't come ea$y