Measuring Football Programs by Wins and Money Spent

[YaketySax]

interesting off-season research:



For those without a sub, UK is $4.05 million per win 2010-2019. Right around TCU, Minnesota, and a hair under Florida at $4.06 million. The SEC average over this period is $4.09 million per win. Bama is $4.32 million per win.

“Where do these numbers come from? The schools submit them to the Department of Education to prove they’re complying with Title IX. The DOE then places them in its Equity In Athletics database. I downloaded a file that showed the total football expenses for all 130 FBS schools from 2010-19. Yes, all of them. This is the one place private schools must report their athletics revenues and expenses, so it allows us to include Notre Dame and Stanford and Baylor and the like in the comparison. Why stop at 2019? The 2019-20 school year is the most recently available data.”

 

[zwynn10]

This is good information but the data can be misleading in that it doesn't show what most at first glance thinks it shows. The initial glance suggests the data shows that the more a school pays for wins, the more it is invested in its football program. Instead, the data really shows the efficiency of the money spent on the football program.

Take this simple example - - School A spends $10M and wins 10 games and team B spends the same amount but has 5 wins. The result would be that Team is spending $1M per win while Team B spends $2M per win. One might conclude that Team B is investing more in its program which is not true. What it really shows is that Team A is more efficient in spending $10M than Team B. In other words, Team A is getting a lot more "bang for the buck" than Team B.

 

[YaketySax]

This is good information but the data can be misleading in that it doesn't show what most at first glance thinks it shows. The initial glance suggests the data shows that the more a school pays for wins, the more it is invested in its football program. Instead, the data really shows the efficiency of the money spent on the football program.

Take this simple example - - School A spends $10M and wins 10 games and team B spends the same amount but has 5 wins. The result would be that Team is spending $1M per win while Team B spends $2M per win. One might conclude that Team B is investing more in its program which is not true. What it really shows is that Team A is more efficient in spending $10M than Team B. In other words, Team A is getting a lot more "bang for the buck" than Team B.

copy-pasting the intro…


What programs have the highest/lowest cost per win the last 10 years? Shouldn’t those programs be lauded/chastised more for their effectiveness/lack thereof?

I generally know what college football programs spend in a year, but I wasn’t sure what specific programs spent each year unless I’d recently done a story on a program’s finances. I knew some schools spent money lavishly for a seemingly shaky return on investment. But we often hear coaches complain — usually off the record — that they would succeed more if their schools would simply spend more. We in the media are guilty of propagating this myth, too. We buy and subsequently sell the narrative that if a school builds a swankier facility or beefs up its off-field staff that success is just around the corner.

The data show that isn’t necessarily the case. Spending the most doesn’t necessarily equate to winning the most, just as spending the least doesn’t necessarily equate to winning the least. After finding the answer to Doug’s question, there isn’t an easy answer as to exactly how much a program should reasonably expect to spend to field a successful football team.

 

[wildcatglenn]

Soooooo, how much did UK have per win?

 

[YaketySax]

Soooooo, how much did UK have per win?

For those without a sub, UK is $4.05 million per win 2010-2019

 

[vhcat70]

But I think the data would also show that those that spend the most overall win the most.

Also, if a team spent a $100K/yr on football & went 0-12, their spending per win would be infinite.

 

[satcheluk]

This is good information but the data can be misleading in that it doesn't show what most at first glance thinks it shows. The initial glance suggests the data shows that the more a school pays for wins, the more it is invested in its football program. Instead, the data really shows the efficiency of the money spent on the football program.

Take this simple example - - School A spends $10M and wins 10 games and team B spends the same amount but has 5 wins. The result would be that Team is spending $1M per win while Team B spends $2M per win. One might conclude that Team B is investing more in its program which is not true. What it really shows is that Team A is more efficient in spending $10M than Team B. In other words, Team A is getting a lot more "bang for the buck" than Team B.

No one with avg to avg+ intelligence is going to misunderstand the data. This is like golf, the higher the score the worse you are at the game.

 

[DCFseattle]

No one with avg to avg+ intelligence is going to misunderstand the data. This is like golf, the higher the score the worse you are at the game.

Then why is Alabama the highest score in the SEC over the last decade?

They spend $250k more per win than Kentucky does. They're much better at the game. Than everybody.

 

[The-Hack]

Then why is Alabama the highest score in the SEC over the last decade?

They spend $250k more per win than Kentucky does. They're much better at the game. Than everybody.

And Bama has more wins, and spends more per.

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

And Bama has more wins, and spends more per.

A large part of t has can be attributed to Saban when he was making 9m and everyone else was under 6m. And having the largest support staff. Not sure that is the case anymore, UGA has 40-50. UF is near that number. I assume ATM is there or more. That includes dietitians and nutritionist, but not trainers or therapist. Those guys salaries range from Butch Jones 35k to Will Muschamp's 330k he got before taking over an on field slot last year. There could be some making more or less, those are just the ones I know.

 

[DCFseattle]

I think what you can take from this is this is not a metric that means anything, and really it isn't worth the research

 

[YaketySax]

I think what you can take from this is this is not a metric that means anything, and really it isn't worth the research

I think return on investment is a good metric but to each their own. Poor Kansas. Poor Texas. Arkansas better keep punching above it’s weight for the amount it spends.

 

[SosaUK87]

This is good information but the data can be misleading in that it doesn't show what most at first glance thinks it shows. The initial glance suggests the data shows that the more a school pays for wins, the more it is invested in its football program. Instead, the data really shows the efficiency of the money spent on the football program.

Take this simple example - - School A spends $10M and wins 10 games and team B spends the same amount but has 5 wins. The result would be that Team is spending $1M per win while Team B spends $2M per win. One might conclude that Team B is investing more in its program which is not true. What it really shows is that Team A is more efficient in spending $10M than Team B. In other words, Team A is getting a lot more "bang for the buck" than Team B.

Welp, thanks Captain Obvious.

 

[satcheluk]

Then why is Alabama the highest score in the SEC over the last decade?

They spend $250k more per win than Kentucky does. They're much better at the game. Than everybody.

I can't get past the paywall, so I am only able to analyze the data present in the OP, but there are 4 SEC teams listed in the Tweet that spend more than Bama, thus are less efficient than both Bama and UK. And as an analyst myself, I would argue Bama more efficient at getting wins than we are once you factor in SOS. They play a lot more games against A-list competition and I can guarantee you there is diminishing ROI once you reach a certain level. This data set is very elementary and I suspect you would agree if they played our exact schedule their cost per win would be much, much lower.

 

[DCFseattle]

I can't get past the paywall, so I am only able to analyze the data present in the OP, but there are 4 SEC teams listed in the Tweet that spend more than Bama, thus are less efficient than both Bama and UK. And as an analyst myself, I would argue Bama more efficient at getting wins than we are once you factor in SOS. They play a lot more games against A-list competition and I can guarantee you there is diminishing ROI once you reach a certain level. This data set is very elementary and I suspect you would agree if they played our exact schedule their cost per win would be much, much lower.

Hey everybody, look at Mr Fancy over here, reading the tweet.

I didn't click that, just read the OP. So my dataset was based purely on that. Whatever. My mistake.

I'm not entirely sure bama would have a better ROI if they played our exact schedule. Maybe they would, but they're winning damn near every game anyway. Hard to tell. They would play 1 or 2 fewer games every year? Max we've had is 13. They sometimes play 15. So how often would they have fewer wins just based on playing fewer games?

 

[satcheluk]

Hey everybody, look at Mr Fancy over here, reading the tweet.

I didn't click that, just read the OP. So my dataset was based purely on that. Whatever. My mistake.

I'm not entirely sure bama would have a better ROI if they played our exact schedule. Maybe they would, but they're winning damn near every game anyway. Hard to tell. They would play 1 or 2 fewer games every year? Max we've had is 13. They sometimes play 15. So how often would they have fewer wins just based on playing fewer games?

If by fancy, you mean I use my brain to make obvious and occasionally less obvious conclusions, then yes, I'm fancy. What does that make you? And in case my writing is too fancy, that is a rhetorical question which means you don't have to answer, as you have already shown your most prominent side.

 

[DCFseattle]

If by fancy, you mean I use my brain to make obvious and occasionally less obvious conclusions, then yes, I'm fancy. What does that make you? And in case my writing is too fancy, that is a rhetorical question which means you don't have to answer, as you have already shown your most prominent side.

I made a joke about my self and you took offense to it.

 

[satcheluk]

I made a joke about my self and you took offense to it.

If that is the case, then mea culpa, but do tell what words in your post indicated you were mocking yourself, as opposed, the more obvious in response to the post I'm responding to?

 

[DCFseattle]

If that is the case, then mea culpa, but do tell what words in your post indicated you were mocking yourself, as opposed, the more obvious in response to the post I'm responding to?

Obviously ridiculous statement to start, shifting blame from me not getting all the information first to you... getting all the information first. I'm not sure how you took it seriously.
Followed that with how I missed the 4 teams ahead of Alabama in spending. Ended with "my mistake". What else could I do?

 

[satcheluk]

Obviously ridiculous statement to start, shifting blame from me not getting all the information first to you... getting all the information first. I'm not sure how you took it seriously.
Followed that with how I missed the 4 teams ahead of Alabama in spending. Ended with "my mistake". What else could I do?

Rather than responding to my reasonable assertions you mocked me with, "Hey everybody, look at Mr Fancy over here," so I responded with, "If by fancy, you mean I use my brain to make obvious and occasionally less obvious conclusions, then yes, I'm fancy." Being snarky back. When someone mocks you, especially if unnecessarily, then expect punch(metaphorically) back. Then, rather than recognizing you shouldn't have mocked, you gaslight me and act like I somehow misinterpreted your post and then you use "whatever" which is how teen aged girls dismiss each other. Take an effective communications class or expect similar interactions in the future.

 

[DCFseattle]

Rather than responding to my reasonable assertions you mocked me with, "Hey everybody, look at Mr Fancy over here," so I responded with, "If by fancy, you mean I use my brain to make obvious and occasionally less obvious conclusions, then yes, I'm fancy." Being snarky back. When someone mocks you, especially if unnecessarily, then expect punch(metaphorically) back. Then, rather than recognizing you shouldn't have mocked, you gaslight me and act like I somehow misinterpreted your post and then you use "whatever" which is how teen aged girls dismiss each other. Take an effective communications class or expect similar interactions in the future.

I'm not gonna keep doing this.

I didn't mock you for reading the tweet. I mocked me for not by being absurd. I'm sorry I assumed you would get the nonsense of it. Won't happen again