College Football’s Most Valuable Teams 2018

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

How do you spend that much on recruiting in the middle of SEC territory and not have better classes? Jeez/

 

[7Samurai13]

How do you spend that much on recruiting in the middle of SEC territory and not have better classes? Jeez/

While bringing in 30+ recruits a year

 

[Across The Field]

Back to Title IX -- most football programs in the P5 bring in tons of money and could afford it. It becomes a problem when their athletic departments as a whole are not profitable.

Yeah, you really can't just shrug that off because it IS a major problem. All of those things you brought up earlier that programs "make bank on" are desperately needed to fund other sports at the school. So they can pay the football players maybe, but they'd have no other sports at the school and, if you're talking about paying $8 mil to the players every year, most athletic departments would simply fold. Your ignorance coming from a position as a fan of an extremely wealthy athletic department is guiding your reasoning.

 

[Tin Man]

@MAIZEandBLUE09... 2002 Tennessee 45, Michigan 17; 2018 Florida 41, Michigan 15. Must have been deja vu for you, eh?

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Yeah, you really can't just shrug that off because it IS a major problem. All of those things you brought up earlier that programs "make bank on" are desperately needed to fund other sports at the school. So they can pay the football players maybe, but they'd have no other sports at the school and, if you're talking about paying $8 mil to the players every year, most athletic departments would simply fold. Your ignorance coming from a position as a fan of an extremely wealthy athletic department is guiding your reasoning.

This may be a controversial opinion, but I'd be fine removing all non-self sustaining sports from all Universities. But again...Title IX. Or at least allowing Universities to totally manage which sports they offer or not. I don't think Title IX should be applied to athletic departments for a simple reason; athletic departments should never be subsidized by the academic budget. I think that's more of a problem than not having as many women's sports as mens.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

@MAIZEandBLUE09... 2002 Tennessee 45, Michigan 17; 2018 Florida 41, Michigan 15. Must have been deja vu for you, eh?

I feel like you're missing some games in-between. And isn't 2002 the last time Tennessee was good at football?

 

[Tin Man]

I feel like you're missing some games in-between. And isn't 2002 the last time Tennessee was good at football?

I allude to the classic Spinal Tap, and you're prompted to talk smack about Tennessee... Must be the maize butthurt in you. Well, pompous Ann Arbor acolyte, the only time your team met Tennessee on the gridiron, your team was ground into mustard. The latest time your vaunted Angry Weasels met a SEC team, they received a similar ass whoopin'. Most folks in similar position would practice restraint, but, by your example, UM fans are a bunch of poo flinging howler monkeys.

 

[Across The Field]

This may be a controversial opinion, but I'd be fine removing all non-self sustaining sports from all Universities. But again...Title IX. Or at least allowing Universities to totally manage which sports they offer or not. I don't think Title IX should be applied to athletic departments for a simple reason; athletic departments should never be subsidized by the academic budget. I think that's more of a problem than not having as many women's sports as mens.

This is just going to open the floodgates of greed. I'm much happier with the resolution of allowing them to make money off of their own likeness. It ensures that the major contributors realize their value, while the more secondary guys aren't also going to be making the same amount, pissing off the major contributors. Completely open market, and it doesn't put stress on department budgets.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

How Does The College Football Playoff Affect A Program's Finances?

College football programs make a lot of money, especially national powerhouses. The list of the sport’s most valuable teams is littered with programs with long and storied histories. Many of the teams at the top of this list are perennial contenders for the national title, and four of the top seven have made the playoff in the last two years.

That said, less-wealthy teams have made the playoff. Clemson isn’t even on Forbes’ list of the sport’s most valuable teams, and their 2016 national title made them the first national champion since 2005 to rank outside the top 20 in revenues. Washington and Michigan State barely cracked the top 25 last year. But while Clemson is a mainstay in the national title conversation, Washington and Michigan State have each only made the playoff once. How much of an impact does making the playoff give these programs?

In Washington’s case, it was a pretty big one. After years of competing just to play in a bowl game, in 2016, the Huskies went 12-1, won the Pac-12, and made the playoff. Prior to this, the Huskies had only won more than seven games in a season twice since 2001. There was even a five-year stretch in which the team won 12 games combined. When head coach Chris Petersen took over in 2014, the program was mediocre at best.

Then, seemingly out of nowhere, they made the playoff. Even though they lost to Alabama, just being in contention for the national title appears to have been a huge boon for the program. According to annual financial filings made to the NCAA, the Washington football team’s net profit was $22 million in both 2014-15 and 2015-16 (eight- and seven-win seasons, respectively.) However, in 2016-17, the year it made the playoff, the program had a profit of more than $42 million.

Compare that to Alabama. In those same three years, the Tide had profits of $46 million, $47 million, and $45 million. After making the playoff just once, Washington nearly doubled their profits to match Alabama’s, a team with a long history and five playoff appearances. Granted, Alabama made about $20 million more in pure revenue (Alabama spends more than any other program), but taken by itself, Washington’s growth is massive.

While ticket sales increased slightly the year they made the playoff, much of their growth came from contributions. These are, by and large, donations received from individuals, foundations, or corporations designated specifically for the operations of the program. Washington received $7 million more in contributions in 2016-17 than they did the year prior which accounted for most of their growth in revenue.

The impact isn’t always that big, however. Michigan State made the playoff in 2015, and, importantly, the program was considerably better in the years leading up to their playoff berth than Washington was. In 2014, the Spartans went 11-2 and won the Cotton Bowl, and the year prior, they went 13-1, winning the Big 10 and the Rose Bowl.

Between the 2014 and 2015 seasons, Michigan State’s football program experienced about $3 million in growth, jumping from $29 million to $32 million in profits. Unlike Washington, MSU’s ticket sales and contributions largely stagnated. Nearly all of this growth came from participating in the bowl. There was a $3 million boost in revenues generated from conference payouts to the school, much of which comes from their playoff berth. Additionally, the NCAA added a line to these financial statements that included revenue generated from playing in a bowl that was not included in previous years. This increased MSU’s revenue by about $4 million.

In 2016, though, profits jumped another $6 million. Even though Michigan State went 3-9 and failed to make a bowl, ticket sales jumped $2 million. Total revenue dropped $1 million in large part because contributions decreased and they received only $6,380 in bowl payouts compared to 2015’s $4 million. Not participating in a bowl was also a large reason for their increase in profits. Because they didn’t have to travel, bowl expenses dropped almost $5 million.

So how much of an impact does making the playoff have? For less consistently good programs, it seems like a lot. When a team starts performing well after years of mediocre play, people start to watch. Washington hadn’t been an elite program in recent memory, so their playoff berth in 2016 was massive. Michigan State, however, had been playing at a consistently high level for years before their berth. Once financial data for the 2017 and 2018 seasons becomes available, it will be interesting to see if Washington maintains this growth. As for now, if a team makes the playoff, it’s safe to say they have some money, too.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

I allude to the classic Spinal Tap, and you're prompted to talk smack about Tennessee... Must be the maize butthurt in you. Well, pompous Ann Arbor acolyte, the only time your team met Tennessee on the gridiron, your team was ground into mustard. The latest time your vaunted Angry Weasels met a SEC team, they received a similar ass whoopin'. Most folks in similar position would practice restraint, but, by your example, UM fans are a bunch of poo flinging howler monkeys.

Ok? Quite frankly, I don't care about a game that took place 16 years ago. I thought my comment was pretty harmless. You seem pretty triggered over my reply to your troll...

 

[Deep Creek]

Yes, because it’s not unfair enough for them already.

Yep. Anyone that believes equally sharing TV revenue puts every program in the conference on the same playing field is completely out of their mind. Not even close.

 

[Deep Creek]

How Does The College Football Playoff Affect A Program's Finances?

College football programs make a lot of money, especially national powerhouses. The list of the sport’s most valuable teams is littered with programs with long and storied histories. Many of the teams at the top of this list are perennial contenders for the national title, and four of the top seven have made the playoff in the last two years.

That said, less-wealthy teams have made the playoff. Clemson isn’t even on Forbes’ list of the sport’s most valuable teams, and their 2016 national title made them the first national champion since 2005 to rank outside the top 20 in revenues. Washington and Michigan State barely cracked the top 25 last year. But while Clemson is a mainstay in the national title conversation, Washington and Michigan State have each only made the playoff once. How much of an impact does making the playoff give these programs?

In Washington’s case, it was a pretty big one. After years of competing just to play in a bowl game, in 2016, the Huskies went 12-1, won the Pac-12, and made the playoff. Prior to this, the Huskies had only won more than seven games in a season twice since 2001. There was even a five-year stretch in which the team won 12 games combined. When head coach Chris Petersen took over in 2014, the program was mediocre at best.

Then, seemingly out of nowhere, they made the playoff. Even though they lost to Alabama, just being in contention for the national title appears to have been a huge boon for the program. According to annual financial filings made to the NCAA, the Washington football team’s net profit was $22 million in both 2014-15 and 2015-16 (eight- and seven-win seasons, respectively.) However, in 2016-17, the year it made the playoff, the program had a profit of more than $42 million.

Compare that to Alabama. In those same three years, the Tide had profits of $46 million, $47 million, and $45 million. After making the playoff just once, Washington nearly doubled their profits to match Alabama’s, a team with a long history and five playoff appearances. Granted, Alabama made about $20 million more in pure revenue (Alabama spends more than any other program), but taken by itself, Washington’s growth is massive.

While ticket sales increased slightly the year they made the playoff, much of their growth came from contributions. These are, by and large, donations received from individuals, foundations, or corporations designated specifically for the operations of the program. Washington received $7 million more in contributions in 2016-17 than they did the year prior which accounted for most of their growth in revenue.

The impact isn’t always that big, however. Michigan State made the playoff in 2015, and, importantly, the program was considerably better in the years leading up to their playoff berth than Washington was. In 2014, the Spartans went 11-2 and won the Cotton Bowl, and the year prior, they went 13-1, winning the Big 10 and the Rose Bowl.

Between the 2014 and 2015 seasons, Michigan State’s football program experienced about $3 million in growth, jumping from $29 million to $32 million in profits. Unlike Washington, MSU’s ticket sales and contributions largely stagnated. Nearly all of this growth came from participating in the bowl. There was a $3 million boost in revenues generated from conference payouts to the school, much of which comes from their playoff berth. Additionally, the NCAA added a line to these financial statements that included revenue generated from playing in a bowl that was not included in previous years. This increased MSU’s revenue by about $4 million.

In 2016, though, profits jumped another $6 million. Even though Michigan State went 3-9 and failed to make a bowl, ticket sales jumped $2 million. Total revenue dropped $1 million in large part because contributions decreased and they received only $6,380 in bowl payouts compared to 2015’s $4 million. Not participating in a bowl was also a large reason for their increase in profits. Because they didn’t have to travel, bowl expenses dropped almost $5 million.

So how much of an impact does making the playoff have? For less consistently good programs, it seems like a lot. When a team starts performing well after years of mediocre play, people start to watch. Washington hadn’t been an elite program in recent memory, so their playoff berth in 2016 was massive. Michigan State, however, had been playing at a consistently high level for years before their berth. Once financial data for the 2017 and 2018 seasons becomes available, it will be interesting to see if Washington maintains this growth. As for now, if a team makes the playoff, it’s safe to say they have some money, too.

Seems like CLemson is getting their money's worth. Some of the rest of 'em, not so much.

 

[Across The Field]

I allude to the classic Spinal Tap, and you're prompted to talk smack about Tennessee... Must be the maize butthurt in you. Well, pompous Ann Arbor acolyte, the only time your team met Tennessee on the gridiron, your team was ground into mustard. The latest time your vaunted Angry Weasels met a SEC team, they received a similar ass whoopin'. Most folks in similar position would practice restraint, but, by your example, UM fans are a bunch of poo flinging howler monkeys.

Were you high when you typed this?

 

[navamind]

What does Alabama spend $1 million dollars a month more on

houndstooth hats

 

[Tin Man]

Were you high when you typed this?

I had high fevers as a child...