If you want to argue, argue, I have seen the numbers. At this point I am done with the argument, believe what you want to believe.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
NCAA vs the Big 6 conferences - a divide might be coming
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
If you want to argue, argue, I have seen the numbers. At this point I am done with the argument, believe what you want to believe.
77buff
Well-Known Member
You are full of crap, and a cop out. Put up or shut up.
http://buffzone.pmpblogs.com/2010/10/22/cu-facing-revenue-challenges/
I have, your turn, end of conversation. I won't argue with someone coming from a lack of evidence like you are.
Not worth my time, let's just leave it at that.
77buff
Well-Known Member
I think you may be correct, you saw those top 30 football revenue figures at Disneyland for football - please forward the link!
http://turfburner.com/the-feed/item/437-texas-leads-country-in-football-revenue
Last edited:
TimmyDUBs
Dirty haole
You guys want to get your calculators out? This information is for 2004-05 so it is is kind of random, but I think should be a better analysis of where CU may have matched up in the past.
Here is the ranking of expenditure subtotals: http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/revenue_stat/show_field_rank
CU ranks number 20. Not bad.
and CU's specific breakdown: http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/revenue_stat/show?school_id=20
Now, here is an incredibly interesting article that graphs expenditures versus revenue by average from 2003-2009: http://matlabgeeks.com/sports-analysis/college-football/ncaa-div-i-college-football-expenses-and-revenue/
Based on my incredible 100% accurate method of measuring the difference of CU's profit by marking a piece of paper with a pen to show the length and then compare the length of other schools' profits. CU came up 24th (perhaps tied with Illinois)
I didn't mean to butt into this argument, but it does appear that CU in just the 21st century is up there in overall profits and revenue. We are at down years, but I think overall the state of the football program would hold up no matter what happens with super conferences or one big time conference (which is what I think led to this discussion.)
Here is the ranking of expenditure subtotals: http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/revenue_stat/show_field_rank
CU ranks number 20. Not bad.
and CU's specific breakdown: http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/revenue_stat/show?school_id=20
Now, here is an incredibly interesting article that graphs expenditures versus revenue by average from 2003-2009: http://matlabgeeks.com/sports-analysis/college-football/ncaa-div-i-college-football-expenses-and-revenue/
Based on my incredible 100% accurate method of measuring the difference of CU's profit by marking a piece of paper with a pen to show the length and then compare the length of other schools' profits. CU came up 24th (perhaps tied with Illinois)
I didn't mean to butt into this argument, but it does appear that CU in just the 21st century is up there in overall profits and revenue. We are at down years, but I think overall the state of the football program would hold up no matter what happens with super conferences or one big time conference (which is what I think led to this discussion.)
Last edited:
Tractor
Club Member
/Close thread?
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
fify
77buff
Well-Known Member
[
You misread the chart - the odd #'s 1,3,5 etc are listed on the left, and the even #'s 2,4,6 on the right which makes CU #40 which is correct. The way you are reading it you are skipping teams on the right like Alabama, Texas, and Notre Dame which make tons more money and profit than CU. It is a complement to the CU athletic dept considering all things.
Attachments
Last edited:
TimmyDUBs
Dirty haole
No, the chart is ordered from highest to lowest expenses. I 'subtracted' revenue by expenses by measuring the length of the green that goes past the red. You can use a ruler or mark a small piece of paper. Then I went down the entire list and counted how many teams have a higher profit than CU. I counted 23, I believe.
77buff
Well-Known Member
The thread was about revenue not revenue vs expenses. CU has very few athletic teams compared to many. No baseball, rowing, equestrian = less expenses.
Last edited:
66BUFF
FTW
TimmyDUBs
Dirty haole
So we aren't talking about football? Hahaha, do you have a point to this conversation?
Regardless. I look at the revenue line (the green one) and did the same thing, comparing it to all the teams on the list (the whole NCAA.) CU came up 25th from what I can tell. Remember, this is an average for the 2003-2009 seasons. CU seems to be up there, and I would imagine that in the 90's they were even higher.
They were at least there if not higher but save your breath, 77Buff knows it all, even if the facts show otherwise.
77buff
Well-Known Member
Seems there is some conflicting information here
http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2011/03/20/whos-making-money-in-big-12-football/
How can you go from the middle of the pack in the Big 12 to a top 30 or vice versa and read about the disparity in revenue between the conferences?
I'm not direspecting you, but Forbes info doesn't jive with yours.
Forbes has 10 teams in the SEC alone with higher revenue than CU.
The Forbes info is from 2010, but things don't change that drastically in a few years. I already agreed with Mt Buff that CU was a top 30 in the Mac era. His statement was that historically, CU has always been a consistent top 30 revenue producer. No way in hell during the 80's. The Hawkins era was nothing to write home about.
All the attachments are from Forbes - they are not from me.
Attachments
Last edited:
TimmyDUBs
Dirty haole
The thing is that the top ten or fifteen revenue producers across the board are making WAAAY more money than the 25-15 top producers, and more of them are in the Big Ten and SEC. the 20-30 ranked teams are not beating the rest of the pack by the same margin, but are still producing more money. CU being in the middle of the pack for one year (arguably one of the worst in fan-perspective considering we were just waiting out Hawkins) would reflect pretty well overall.
I went into this argument honestly not taking any side and just wanting to learn about where CU falls in the overall hierarchy. I spent more time than I would have expected finding real numbers, and when I did I was happily surprised that they were in the mid- and upper-20s for profit and revenue during years that the program has been down, no less. I think that find may surprise a few people on these boards, since the only programs that get this analysis are the top ten/top fifteen. We aren't UT, Auburn, or OSU, etc, but we are not a slouch.
If you want to show me some numbers that support your claim then feel free. I am pretty happy knowing where we stand from what I've found! :thumbsup:
PS
I actually would tend to believe that we were much higher on this list late 80s and 90s. It would be really interesting to see the data. I think the early 80s were down years, but may not have been too different overall than the past decade.
I went into this argument honestly not taking any side and just wanting to learn about where CU falls in the overall hierarchy. I spent more time than I would have expected finding real numbers, and when I did I was happily surprised that they were in the mid- and upper-20s for profit and revenue during years that the program has been down, no less. I think that find may surprise a few people on these boards, since the only programs that get this analysis are the top ten/top fifteen. We aren't UT, Auburn, or OSU, etc, but we are not a slouch.
If you want to show me some numbers that support your claim then feel free. I am pretty happy knowing where we stand from what I've found! :thumbsup:
PS
I actually would tend to believe that we were much higher on this list late 80s and 90s. It would be really interesting to see the data. I think the early 80s were down years, but may not have been too different overall than the past decade.
77buff
Well-Known Member
Forbes had 10 teams in the SEC, 7 teams in the Big 10 and 5 teams in the Big 12 with higher revenue than CU. That's 22 teams right there - just sayin Forbes is telling a different story. I don't deny at all that CU was a top 30 in the Mac era and a few with Neweasel.
77buff
Well-Known Member
I didn't disagree with you on everything. Remember I did say I agreed that CU was a top 30 revenue producer in Mac's era and a few with the Weasel. I was wrong to say you were full of crap and a cop out. I was out of line, and there was no call for that at all. My German temper got the best of me , and I apologize - although after the fact it doesn't mean much. After alot of searching I have found there is some conflicting data. I hope you will still talk to me. You seem like a good dude.They were at least there if not higher but save your breath, 77Buff knows it all, even if the facts show otherwise.
Dude, did you just quote the Weasel as a definitive source supporting your argument? Very trustworthy, that guy. :lol: