Football Revenue and Subsidies

This article in USA Today was an eye opener. I'm troubled that every MWC school except BYU and Air Force are on the list. Maybe it's because only these two schools refuse to pay their coach millions of dollars a year. I was shocked that even Alabama is on the list, but more shocking, look at their athletic revenue. ($123 million), compare to most of the MWC schools ($20-30 million range), then look at what Utah State revenue is.

Yes, it is crazy the $ dif from UF, to USU.

URL?

maybe this one?

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-01-13-ncaa-athletics-subsidies_N.htm

Oh and here's the database...



http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ncaa-finances.htm

Just shows that the more $$$ you have, the more you spend to win. And it also shows that teams with the most $$$ do win the most in athletics. $$$ does equal victories and success.

bball wrote:
I'm troubled that every MWC school except BYU and Air Force are on the list. Maybe it's because only these two schools refuse to pay their coach millions of dollars a year.

(1) BYU: BYU is private, so it wouldn't make the list.



(2) Air Force: The list ranks largest basis point increase in subsidy as a percentage of total budget. Air Force already receives a huge subsidy compared to some of the other schools on the list--somewhere in the 50% range--so it's hard to increase a subsidy that's already high.

Lawboy wrote:
Just shows that the more $$$ you have, the more you spend to win. And it also shows that teams with the most $$$ do win the most in athletics. $$$ does equal victories and success.

See the NY Stankees in exhibit "A".



Go Cougs!!!

J. Child

Ammon, ID

Looks to me like Utah spent Almost half a million more than they brought in. Who paid the rest? I think we know the answer. :angry: