Top 25 Athletic Dept. by profit

[AggiesAreWe]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

A&M #4

[Peppermint Patty]

Texas #2

[OldTimer]

Texas #2

​Not when it comes to profit or income over expenses.

Texas definitely makes the $$$ but also does not mind spending the $$$

A&M needs to get rid of the subsidy however - would like to see that at -0- make the athletic department pay for itself.

 

[Mr. Buddy Garrity]

QUACK QUACK! 

[UTfanatic]

Aggies should hire a graduate of the  Red McCombs School of Business. 

Numbers never lie, it is all in how it is reported.

[UTfanatic]

for BG

quack quack

[AggiesAreWe]

Texas #2

​

How? It shows them #16

[TxHoops]

​

How? It shows them #16

​Revenue.  When you have more money than everyone else, you don't mind spending it.  And when it comes to football, we are the Joneses.  So try and keep up   (Spoiler alert:  you can't).

[Cougar14.2]

​Revenue.  When you have more money than everyone else, you don't mind spending it.  And when it comes to football, we are the Joneses.  So try and keep up   (Spoiler alert:  you can't).

​This is probably what you were referring to.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[UTfanatic]

Study done by a professor in B 10 school.

Numbers never lie, It is all in the reporting.

[AggiesAreWe]

​Revenue.  When you have more money than everyone else, you don't mind spending it.  And when it comes to football, we are the Joneses.  So try and keep up   (Spoiler alert:  you can't).

​Was the article about revenue or profit?

[Peppermint Patty]

 

​Was the article about revenue or profit?

​This article was about profit. The article that was originally published was about revenue. It seems that you can make the numbers say what you want them too in order to make yourself look better. So it's not unusual that a pro-aggie website opted to focus on the "profit" side of the equation since it showed their program in a more favorable light.

 

Here is an unbiased database:

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

Texas is #2. I appreciate that they included the subsidy percentages. 

Edited May 28, 2015 by GCMPats2

[OldTimer]

You're "quote" unbiased" database shows the same numbers that the originally quoted report does - the only difference is that your database does not net the Total Revenue and the Total Expenses as good bull hunting does.

You say blue I say red - both articles have legitimate assumptions and the use the same numbers so how is one "biased" and the other NOT?

Fact: Texas has the 2nd largest Total Revenue shown

Fact: Texas was the leader in Total Expenses

Fact: Texas was Number 16 on Net Revenue 

These facts are neither good or bad by themselves - Texas should still be proud to make the most - by a lot - of almost any major college in the country - they just spend it and that is the reason that they have the best facilities in the country and can pay their assistant coaches the same as many college head coaches make.  They should be proud of that fact.

The fact that the net is better for the Aggie's than the Horns is a bright spot for the Aggie program which has struggled financially in the past.  You opted  to "focus" on the Revenue side since that showed favorably on the Texas program but you blast and Aggie fan for focusing on the bright spot for the Aggie's - called bias and it is always their for you, me and everybody.

[AggiesAreWe]

 

​This article was about profit. The article that was originally published was about revenue. It seems that you can make the numbers say what you want them too in order to make yourself look better. So it's not unusual that a pro-aggie website opted to focus on the "profit" side of the equation since it showed their program in a more favorable light.

 

Here is an unbiased database:

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

Texas is #2. I appreciate that they included the subsidy percentages. 

​First comment was all I needed. Thank you.

[UTfanatic]

y'all are still too funny!!!!!!

[Peppermint Patty]

​First comment was all I needed. Thank you.

​what fun would that have been?

[TxHoops]

​First comment was all I needed. Thank you.

​Yes, let's not get into the Forbes valuation of football programs, athletic departments, merch sales, etc.   Let's just use whatever data and manipulate it to make little brother feel better about himself.  We get it.  We really do

[AggiesAreWe]

​Yes, let's not get into the Forbes valuation of football programs, athletic departments, merch sales, etc.   Let's just use whatever data and manipulate it to make little brother feel better about himself.  We get it.  We really do

​Manipulate? Isn't the article I posted factual?

If not, then my apologies.

[TxHoops]

​Manipulate? Isn't the article I posted factual?

If not, then my apologies.

​You got me.  Poor choice of words on my part. 

[UTfanatic]

I have been trying to say that beauty is in the "Eye of the Beholder".

I can take any set of numbers and prove my point. 

You can take the same numbers and prove your point. 

I learned that in statistical analysis. 

[LumRaiderFan]

I have been trying to say that beauty is in the "Eye of the Beholder".

I can take any set of numbers and prove my point. 

You can take the same numbers and prove your point. 

I learned that in statistical analysis. 

​The point of the article was profit, right?

 

[TxHoops]

​The point of the article was profit, right?

 

​Yes.  The point of the article, by an aggy publication, was that although they make less than 75 percent as much as big brother (even in the shiny new conference), they are much more thrifty!

[AggiesAreWe]

​Yes.  The point of the article, by an aggy publication, was that although they make less than 75 percent as much as big brother (even in the shiny new conference), they are much more thrifty!

​Does the article being an "aggy publication" change the fact?

[TxHoops]

​Does the article being an "aggy publication" change the fact?

​Not at all.  It laid out the data which I used to accurately state the premise which you quoted. 

[LumRaiderFan]

​Yes.  The point of the article, by an aggy publication, was that although they make less than 75 percent as much as big brother (even in the shiny new conference), they are much more thrifty!

​That's what I thought...profit.

Thanks for confirming.