Is Arkansas Athletics Really Getting a Good Return on Investment?

[NaturalStateReb]

When you think about this question, usually the first thing that leaps to mind is coaches' salaries.  While those salaries are very high--Bret Bielema makes $4.25 million per year or about $649,000 per win--that's not what's at issue.  How much is Arkansas investing in athletics, and what is Arkansas getting in return?

In 2014, according to the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, the University of Arkansas spent $12,465 on each full-time student.  The median spending on each full-time student by FBS schools was $15,615, meaning that Arkansas spent nearly 25% less on an average student than its FBS peers.  Arkansas' spending per full-time student rose about 10% from 2009 to 2014, but its academic spending per regular student was less than all SEC institutions other than Mississippi State.  Tennessee spent more than double on its average student than Arkansas did in 2014. (Vanderbilt's data was not available.)

During that same time frame, football spending per football scholarship player rose 45%, nearly double the rise in this spending by other FBS schools.  Arkansas spent $301,878 on each scholarship player, or about 24 times what it spent on a regular student.  You may say, "yes, but we're in the Southeastern Conference.  It's different down here."  Actually, it's not that different.  The average rise in football spending per football athlete at other SEC schools was only 28%, just 4% over the FBS median.  Arkansas' rise in football spending per scholarship player was the 4th largest over that five-year time frame.  Only Ole Miss, LSU, and Auburn saw greater rises—194%, 77%, and 49%, respectively.  Alabama's was only 9%, while Florida's actually declined by 12%. 

But what about the program overall?  Football's expensive, everyone knows that, so what about taking into account all of those cheaper sports and Title IX teams?  Well, it turns out that Arkansas spends a lot there, too.  Arkansas spent $209,381 on each athlete at UA in 2014.  That's the fifth highest amount spent per athlete in the SEC—only LSU, Auburn, Florida, and Tennessee spent more.   Per athlete spending on coaches ranked in the top half as well, and was only $2,000 from being in the top 4.  Despite spending over a fifth of a million dollars on each student athlete, Arkansas didn't do all that much outside of track.

But, Arkansas is self-sufficient, right?  Not exactly.  Although ideas like "profit" are pretty fluid for government institutions, the program turns a profit--but not without at least some institutional support.  According to the Knight Commission, each athlete costs the University of Arkansas $4,284 in institutional support--things like student fees, facilities maintenance and operation, and administrative support.  It's a far cry from the $28,405 median cost of institutional support for FBS schools, but it isn't cost-free. 

Contrast this with Arkansas' SEC peers.  According to the Knight Commission, the only SEC school which received no institutional support for athletics was LSU, and the only schools to see rises in institutional support for athletics were Arkansas, South Carolina, and Kentucky.  There was no change at Ole Miss or Florida, and some schools posted deep declines:  Auburn's support dropped by nearly 25%; State's and Missouri's by about half; and Tennessee's declined 90%.  The average decline in the SEC was 35%.

The Arkansas athletics department makes money, and even clears a profit.  According to the Business of College Sports, that net income was a bit over $11 million in 2011.  That just raises the question, "how much more profitable could it be?"  It's clear that Arkansas is spending more than most of its SEC peers on athletes.  Where is the return on that investment?  No one believes that the average scholarship football player is, on average, worth 24 times the average student to the state's economy after graduation, assuming that players and students actually graduate.  The return isn't, for the most part, on the field or court.  You'd have to assume that you could spend less and win 7 games—Mississippi State spends nearly half per scholarship player and does at least that.  We all talk about Jeff Long's financial acumen—but, when you look at the numbers, Arkansas isn't as profitable as it could be at this level of success, and the spending isn't realizing great returns. 

To see where these figures came from, check the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics' database at http://www.knightcommission.org/ and The Business of College Athletics site on 2011 net income at http://businessofcollegesports.com/2012/03/21/highest-net-income-amongst-athletics-departments/ 

[factchecker]

Did Ole Miss get a good ROI with the recruits they paid?  Was it really worth it?  Best recruits you could buy and STILL can't make it to the SEC title game.  Best recruits you could buy and you lost to Arkansas AGAIN.

[NuttinItUp]

Price per win comparison head coaches:
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/price-per-win-college-footballs-best-and-worst-coaching-bargains-in-2016/

Price per win comparison for entire staff:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2016/12/15/college-football-cost-per-win-bronco-mendenhall-virginia-chris-ash-rutgers-jim-harbaugh-michigan/95476120/

[NaturalStateReb]

Did Ole Miss get a good ROI with the recruits they paid?  Was it really worth it?  Best recruits you could buy and STILL can't make it to the SEC title game.  Best recruits you could buy and you lost to Arkansas AGAIN.

Technically, hookers and cash are off the books, so it's hard to evaluate.

[factchecker]

Price per win comparison head coaches:
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/price-per-win-college-footballs-best-and-worst-coaching-bargains-in-2016/

Price per win comparison for entire staff:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2016/12/15/college-football-cost-per-win-bronco-mendenhall-virginia-chris-ash-rutgers-jim-harbaugh-michigan/95476120/

Great links.

[Fatty McGee]

The other number not mentioned is enrollment, which is at a record level for the UA.  That's the purpose of the football team - to market the University.  It appears to be working.

[Atlhogfan1]

Are you doing research of all SEC athletic departments NSR?

[NuttinItUp]

The other number not mentioned is enrollment, which is at a record level for the UA.  That's the purpose of the football team - to market the University.  It appears to be working.

That and the introduction of the lottery scholarships (in 2009/2010) which increased enrollment precipitously.

[factchecker]

The other number not mentioned is enrollment, which is at a record level for the UA.  That's the purpose of the football team - to market the University.  It appears to be working.

We have a bad ass student section as well:

https://twitter.com/ElvisMoyaUA/status/787489485768445952

Compared to Ole "We might lose the game but we will the party" Miss:

https://twitter.com/bethaneesmith/status/792550687129362432

[NaturalStateReb]

Are you doing research of all SEC athletic departments NSR?

I've got a small spreadsheet for these stats for the SEC departments, Atl, other than Vandy which didn't report.  It's pretty interesting. 

The board doesn't do tables very well, but here's the spending thumbnail sheet:

   Per Athlete   Per Football   Per Student   Per Coach   Inst Support   Pct Football
Auburn   249449   511475   15943   40180   8649   49
LSU   280698   427669   13640   48264   0   77
Tennessee   215760   355704   30418   34418   2541   30
Alabama   206502   347050   15821   39792   10304   9
Ole Miss   187451   321841   22621   35115   9940   194
South Carolina   175390   304504   15632   33475   10315   36
Arkansas   209381   301878   12465   37915   4284   45
Georgia   162103   293724   11891   29505   5735   25
Florida   225700   287828   19910   41578   8865   -12
Missouri   156700   258024   15010   31662   2959   37
Texas A&M   164088   244594   18745   31578   2129   41
Kentucky   186245   189815   14869   39877   1696   24
State   144267   175954   10193   31367   7029   15

Per athlete is what the university spends per athlete, all sports.  Per football is what the university spends per scholarship football player.  Per student is what the university spends annually on each student for academics.  Inst Support is what the university spends on institutional support per athlete.  The Pct Football column is what the change in football spending was from 09-14. 

It's hard to know what kind of accounting goes into each institution's reporting, so there's that caveat.

Some things really jumped out at me.  First, Tennessee and Ole Miss really spend a lot per student, a lot more than I would have supposed.  Spending on coaches per athlete is pretty uniform--LSU is an outlier, but the institutions mostly spend somewhere in the 30's per athlete on coaching. 

Some levels of institutional support are really big.  The one that really stuck out to me was Alabama, which spends $10,304 per athlete.  South Carolina, Ole Miss, Florida, and Auburn also had surprising big numbers.  Ole Miss' spending on football increased at an eye-popping 194% rate, while spending on regular students only increased about 10%.  Auburn and LSU spend an insane amount per scholarship football player--over a half million dollars at Auburn.

I think I actually came away with a greater appreciation for what Scott Stricklin did over at State.  They've been pretty successful while keeping costs low compared to their peers.

[ricepig]

I've got a small spreadsheet for these stats for the SEC departments, Atl, other than Vandy which didn't report.  It's pretty interesting. 

The board doesn't do tables very well, but here's the spending thumbnail sheet:

   Per Athlete   Per Football   Per Student   Per Coach   Inst Support   Pct Football
Auburn   249449   511475   15943   40180   8649   49
LSU   280698   427669   13640   48264   0   77
Tennessee   215760   355704   30418   34418   2541   30
Alabama   206502   347050   15821   39792   10304   9
Ole Miss   187451   321841   22621   35115   9940   194
South Carolina   175390   304504   15632   33475   10315   36
Arkansas   209381   301878   12465   37915   4284   45
Georgia   162103   293724   11891   29505   5735   25
Florida   225700   287828   19910   41578   8865   -12
Missouri   156700   258024   15010   31662   2959   37
Texas A&M   164088   244594   18745   31578   2129   41
Kentucky   186245   189815   14869   39877   1696   24
State   144267   175954   10193   31367   7029   15

Per athlete is what the university spends per athlete, all sports.  Per football is what the university spends per scholarship football player.  Per student is what the university spends annually on each student for academics.  Inst Support is what the university spends on institutional support per athlete.  The Pct Football column is what the change in football spending was from 09-14. 

It's hard to know what kind of accounting goes into each institution's reporting, so there's that caveat.

Some things really jumped out at me.  First, Tennessee and Ole Miss really spend a lot per student, a lot more than I would have supposed.  Spending on coaches per athlete is pretty uniform--LSU is an outlier, but the institutions mostly spend somewhere in the 30's per athlete on coaching. 

Some levels of institutional support are really big.  The one that really stuck out to me was Alabama, which spends $10,304 per athlete.  South Carolina, Ole Miss, Florida, and Auburn also had surprising big numbers.  Ole Miss' spending on football increase at an eye-popping 194% rate, while spending on regular students only increased about 10%.  Auburn and LSU spend an insane amount per scholarship football player--over a half million dollars at Auburn.

I think actually came away with a greater appreciate for what Scott Stricklin at State.  They've been pretty successful while keeping costs low compared to their peers.

I agree on the devil is in the details, how the reporting is done by each institution, and is it uniform.  I'd say our spending has come from increased salaries and new facilities, for the most part.

[factchecker]

I agree on the devil is in the details, how the reporting is done by each institution, and is it uniform.  I'd say our spending has come from increased salaries and new facilities, for the most part.

I don't mind investing in facilities improvement.  I would rather my RF donation go to facilities and student-athlete services (food,gear etc.) than overhead or coaches salaries.

[NaturalStateReb]

I agree on the devil is in the details, how the reporting is done by each institution, and is it uniform.  I'd say our spending has come from increased salaries and new facilities, for the most part.

You figure salaries, not necessarily even coaching salaries, are considerable.  I would expect that overhead for running a facility has to be pretty high as well.  I don't know what it costs to just have an SEC football game (utilities, vendors, cops, sanitation, concessions, supplies) but it's got to be astronomical.

[Fatty McGee]

Still, to keep things in perspective, the cost to the university to buy two hours of national TV airtime once a week, with the ratings we get, would also be astronomical.  And that doesn't include mentions on SportsCenter, promos for the game, etc.

[East TN HAWG]

Overall Good Analysis
One element left out of your argument is the relationship between athletics and the student body "the Flutie Effect".  Two years after the miracle play, Boston College applications increased 30%.  Georgetown saw a 45% increase between 1983 and 1986. Several studies show that college sports directly impact the student body population.  It would be logical to assume that the student body population would have a direct influence on the amount donated to the University.   

You stated "No one believes that the average scholarship football player is, on average, worth 24 times the average student to the state's economy after graduation, assuming that players and students actually graduate."  I would argue that there are players that are worth 1000 times that of an average student to the university.  You can not measure the impact of a DMAC or Peyton Manning to a university. 

Sports have a much deeper economic impact to the university than the athletic budget. 

[DeltaBoy]

I don't know but thanks to Playboy I didn't get to go to the Hill cause Momma said Hades NO!

My Jr year Playboy named UA a top 10 party school.

[HF#1]

Didn't need the essay to say "no".

[factchecker]

I don't know but thanks to Playboy I didn't get to go to the Hill cause Momma said Hades NO!

My Jr year Playboy named UA a top 10 party school.

Why was you mom reading playboy?   

[NaturalStateReb]

Still, to keep things in perspective, the cost to the university to buy two hours of national TV airtime once a week, with the ratings we get, would also be astronomical.  And that doesn't include mentions on SportsCenter, promos for the game, etc.

I'm not arguing that Arkansas--or anyone else--gets no benefit from it.  To me, it's unequivocally true that they derive very substantial benefits from it.  I'm just not sure that Arkansas is realizing the maximum return.  It's clear that Arkansas makes a lot of money, but it's equally clear that it's spending a lot of money per athlete.  Is it making as much as it could, considering the level of success?  Or could it actually spend less, get about the same results, and make even more profit?  I'm not sure. 

[Fatty McGee]

I'm not arguing that Arkansas--or anyone else--gets no benefit from it.  To me, it's unequivocally true that they derive very substantial benefits from it.  I'm just not sure that Arkansas is realizing the maximum return.  It's clear that Arkansas makes a lot of money, but it's equally clear that it's spending a lot of money per athlete.  Is it making as much as it could, considering the level of success?  Or could it actually spend less, get about the same results, and make even more profit?  I'm not sure. 

I understand.  I was just throwing in the cost of similar marketing as another factor for consideration.

[Pork Twain]

Here is the total revenue for SEC schools, we land at 9th, I also included the HC salaries and all assistant coaches salaries.  Charts 2-5 are in order of total staff pay.  I do not have updated info for LSU, so I left Miles there for now.  The far left column list where HC ranks among all other HCs and where the assistants rank among all other assistants.  Top row/far right column for each school lists the total salaries (HC & assistants), next one down is the combined for all assistants

Independently, I am not sure if our return is worth the cost, but when compared to our peers, we are 9th in revenue, 9th in salaries, usually finish around 7-10 in recruiting, rank 9th in stadium capacity and tied for 8th, so either 8th or 9th, in the conference standings this year.  We are almost exactly where we should be based those variables alone.

https://www.seccountry.com/sec/usa-today-releases-coaching-salaries-every-sec-assistant
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/football/assistant

[NaturalStateReb]

Overall Good Analysis
One element left out of your argument is the relationship between athletics and the student body "the Flutie Effect".  Two years after the miracle play, Boston College applications increased 30%.  Georgetown saw a 45% increase between 1983 and 1986. Several studies show that college sports directly impact the student body population.  It would be logical to assume that the student body population would have a direct influence on the amount donated to the University.   

You stated "No one believes that the average scholarship football player is, on average, worth 24 times the average student to the state's economy after graduation, assuming that players and students actually graduate."  I would argue that there are players that are worth 1000 times that of an average student to the university.  You can not measure the impact of a DMAC or Peyton Manning to a university. 

Sports have a much deeper economic impact to the university than the athletic budget. 

I'd agree up to a point.  IMO, the economic impact of a DMAC is pretty limited.  I don't know that people really make decisions on where to go to college based on star players, although I do think they have an advertising effect.  I also think that the effect of a single great season or great player is pretty time limited. 

I think the lottery has had an effect, but it's hard to quantify what causes enrollment to increase.  According to UA's enrollment reports, UA had 19,027 undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 2012 and 22,159 undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 2016.  Enrollment has been pretty flat since 2014. 

[ricepig]

I'm not arguing that Arkansas--or anyone else--gets no benefit from it.  To me, it's unequivocally true that they derive very substantial benefits from it.  I'm just not sure that Arkansas is realizing the maximum return.  It's clear that Arkansas makes a lot of money, but it's equally clear that it's spending a lot of money per athlete.  Is it making as much as it could, considering the level of success?  Or could it actually spend less, get about the same results, and make even more profit?  I'm not sure. 

What "business" is making as much as they can? I've been in business 35 years and I'm pretty sure I've never made every penny possible, haha.

[NuttinItUp]

Here is the total revenue for SEC schools, we land at 9th, I also included the HC salaries and all assistant coaches salaries.  Charts 2-5 are in order of total staff pay.  I do not have updated info for LSU, so I left Miles there for now.  The far left column list where HC ranks among all other HCs and where the assistants rank among all other assistants.  Top row/far right column for each school lists the total salaries (HC & assistants), next one down is the combined for all assistants

Independently, I am not sure if our return is worth the cost, but when compared to our peers, we are 9th in revenue, 9th in salaries, usually finish around 7-10 in recruiting, rank 9th in stadium capacity and tied for 8th, so either 8th or 9th in the conference standings this year.  We are almost exactly where we should be based those variables alone.

https://www.seccountry.com/sec/usa-today-releases-coaching-salaries-every-sec-assistant
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/football/assistant

Nice research and charts.

If it was based on revenue alone, A&M should be smoking everyone else according to that revenue chart you posted.

[factchecker]

Nice research and charts.

If it was based on revenue alone, A&M should be smoking everyone else according to that revenue chart you posted.

As much as I hate the Ags, I have to admit they have an impressive and dedicated fan-base which includes a huge amount of donors and alumni.

[Pork Twain]

SEC Exp

[NaturalStateReb]

What "business" is making as much as they can? I've been in business 35 years and I'm pretty sure I've never made every penny possible, haha.

True, no one makes the absolute last penny to be had, but there's such a thing as leaving money on the table.

What really stuck out to me was Mississippi State.  I'm not saying that we should all go out and copy State, but they don't have the best facilities and they don't spend, at least relative to other SEC schools, large amounts of money either by athlete or by scholarship football player.  Yet, State's been to a College World Series final, an Orange Bowl and a #1 CFP ranking, and they've hired Ben Howland who looks like he'll win some games in basketball.  To me, State's either been very lucky or very strategic about how it's spent athletic revenue.  It'd be interesting to know more about how they did it. 

That's probably part of the reason that Scott Stricklin is now in Gainesville instead of Starkville.

[Razorbax]

Does that include revamping of their stadium? If so, that might explain the number one ranking.

Nice research and charts.

If it was based on revenue alone, A&M should be smoking everyone else according to that revenue chart you posted.

[DeltaBoy]

Why was you mom reading playboy?   

She didn't it was reported on Channel 7 and the other 2 TV stations plus it was in both state papers at the time.

[DeltaBoy]

We are not getting a good return on our investment to the point is almost criminal !

[Pork Twain]

We are not getting a good return on our investment to the point is almost criminal !

According to opinion, you are correct.  According to almost any data set you can compile, you are incorrect.

[factchecker]

We are not getting a good return on our investment to the point is almost criminal !

That's the good thing about being self funded.

If YOU don't like the ROI then YOU can remove YOUR investment.  I'm not sure how much you donate to the RF but you aren't being forced to donate any.

[East TN HAWG]

I'd agree up to a point.  IMO, the economic impact of a DMAC is pretty limited.  I don't know that people really make decisions on where to go to college based on star players, although I do think they have an advertising effect.  I also think that the effect of a single great season or great player is pretty time limited. 

I think the lottery has had an effect, but it's hard to quantify what causes enrollment to increase.  According to UA's enrollment reports, UA had 19,027 undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 2012 and 22,159 undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 2016.  Enrollment has been pretty flat since 2014. 

I agree the lottery makes college more affordable thus attracting a lot of students. 

But were are talking about the impact of high end talent (championship type programs)  Just google Flutie Effect.  It is not the only factor, but athletic success spills over enrollment.  Typically, up to 17% increase.  The majority are marginal students; however, 3-4% are students with high SAT scores.  Examples: Boston College: 30 % after Flutie, Georgetown: 45% after Ewing, Boise State: 18% after 06-07 season, TCU 2000-2008 105%.

[NaturalStateReb]

I agree the lottery makes college more affordable thus attracting a lot of students. 

But were are talking about the impact of high end talent (championship type programs)  Just google Flutie Effect.  It is not the only factor, but athletic success spills over enrollment.  Typically, up to 17% increase.  The majority are marginal students; however, 3-4% are students with high SAT scores.  Examples: Boston College: 30 % after Flutie, Georgetown: 45% after Ewing, Boise State: 18% after 06-07 season, TCU 2000-2008 105%.

I think the lottery also induces universities to simply raise costs, and thus tuition, because there's new money available.

If a Flutie Effect happens, I think it's a short-term phenomenon.  It's possible that the original "Flutie effect" didn't really happen:

Flutie Effect at Boston College

Writing in the Spring 2003 edition of the Boston College Magazine,[4] Bill McDonald, director of communications at Boston College's Lynch School of Education determined that "Applications to BC did surge 16 percent in 1984 (from 12,414 to 14,398), and then another 12 percent (to 16,163) in 1985. But these jumps were not anomalous for BC, which in the previous decade had embarked on a program to build national enrollment using market research, a network of alumni volunteers, strategically allocated financial aid, and improvements to residence halls and academic facilities." He also observed that "in 1997, one year after revelations about gambling resulted in a coach's resignation, 13 student-athlete suspensions, an investigation by the NCAA, and hundreds of embarrassing media reports, applications for admission came in at 16,455, virtually unchanged from the previous year. Two years later, when applications jumped by a record 17 percent to 19,746, the surge followed a 4-7 year for football." Going further back in history, he reported that applications had increased 9 percent in 1978, a year when BC football had its worst year ever, with a 0-11 record.

Mr. McDonald posed the question "How does an idea like the 'Flutie factor' become sufficiently rooted that The New York Times cites it as a given without further comment and some universities invest millions of dollars in its enchanting possibilities?" He was provided with an answer by Barbara Wallraff, author of the "Word Court" column in The Atlantic Monthly: "It's painful to fact-check everything. Media will often reprint what has been published, especially when it appears in reputable publications. 'Flutie factor' is a short, alliterative way to describe something that is complicated to explain. But what makes a good term is not always the literal truth."

[ur]

The other number not mentioned is enrollment, which is at a record level for the UA.  That's the purpose of the football team - to market the University.  It appears to be working.

True, having a good football team helps but what has really helped the enrollment are Texas students. Waiving the out of state tuition for them has helped tremendously. That's why you see a whattaburger up here also. This is why I can't figure out why we don't recruit Texas more. Fay is already crawling with Texas kids. It's not like the Texas players would be on an island up here.

[ATU HOG]

When you say the university spends X amount of many per athlete, what does that entail?
4 year scholarship?
5th year aid?
Facilities?
Travel?
Gear?

Etc.

All of that combined into one?  Sorry if it's a confusing question.

[Poker_hog]

Did you not see PC Principal Long's email?  Everything is great, we are strong.  The girl's tennis team made good grades, etc...

[NaturalStateReb]

When you say the university spends X amount of many per athlete, what does that entail?
4 year scholarship?
5th year aid?
Facilities?
Travel?
Gear?

Etc.

All of that combined into one?  Sorry if it's a confusing question.

I think the answer is "all of the above," but this is how the Knight Commission defined it in their report:

ATHLETIC SPENDING PER ATHLETE:
Total athletic operating expenses, including scholarship costs, per unduplicated athlete.

Total athletic operating expenses reported to the NCAA (as reported on line 36 of the NCAA financial report form) divided by the total number of athletes on a headcount basis. All athletic spending data represent spending on intercollegiate athletics only; intramural and club sports are not included on institution's NCAA financial reports. (Spending from USA TODAY per NCAA financial reports; number of athletes from EADA)

[ricepig]

When you say the university spends X amount of many per athlete, what does that entail?
4 year scholarship?
5th year aid?
Facilities?
Travel?
Gear?

Etc.

All of that combined into one?  Sorry if it's a confusing question.

Athletic budget divided by scholarship athletes.

[Pork Twain]

Did you not see PC Principal Long's email?  Everything is great, we are strong.  The girl's tennis team made good grades, etc...

People say stuff like this because they are pissy, not because they are true.  We are actually about where we always have been in the SEC and that is about where we belong.  Can we do better?  Sure but taking all things into account, it shouldn't be an annual expectation.

[Poker_hog]

People say stuff like this because they are pissy, not because they are true.  We are actually about where we always have been in the SEC and that is about where we belong.  Can we do better?  Sure but taking all things into account, it shouldn't be an annual expectation.

It's not a one year thing, but our ceiling can't be a 7 win football team or a 9th seed basketball team.  The last five years in the 2 major sports have been very mediocre at best.  Why can ma win at uab and mizzou but not here?  Why can Bert win at wisky but not here?  This thread is about bang for your buck.  Long is not delivering.

[Pork Twain]

It's not a one year thing, but our ceiling can't be a 7 win football team or a 9th seed basketball team.  The last five years in the 2 major sports have been very mediocre at best.  Why can ma win at uab and mizzou but not here?  Why can Bret win at wisky but not here?  This thread is about bang for your buck.  Long is not delivering.

Just because you want to ignore all the data I listed does not make it less true.  Bang for your buck precisely means, based on your investment, is your return about equal to that of your peers with regards to their investments. 

We are 9th in the SEC in almost every single category, so consistently finishing there would be... 

There will be years that we are great but that should not always be the expectation.  In order for us to sustain success, we have to build a solid team without a lot of misses.  Changing coaches every time we do not get the results we want is not in line with that.

Doesn't mean I like it or this is what I want, but I am realistic.  I expect to get a $9 steak on average when I spend $9.  If I get a much better steak for my $9 every once in a while, that is great but I should also expect sometimes get a crappy steak.  All about probabilities.

[Poker_hog]

Just because you want to ignore all the data I listed does not make it less true.  Bang for your buck precisely means, based on your investment, is your return about equal to that of your peers with regards to their investments. 

We are 9th in the SEC in almost every single category, so consistently finishing there would be... 

There will be years that we are great but that should not always be the expectation.  In order for us to sustain success, we have to build a solid team without a lot of misses.  Changing coaches every time we do not get the results we want is not in line with that.

Doesn't mean I like it or this is what I want, but I am realistic.  I expect to get a $9 steak on average when I spend $9.  If I get a much better steak for my $9 every once in a while, that is great but I should also expect sometimes get a crappy steak.  All about probabilities.

Your data says we should have on average the 16 best program in the NCAA.  That would be more like buying a $40 steak.  It should always be delicious.

And the right head coach is the answer.  If a coach underperforms once they have their players and system inplace then it's time to move on.  Four years is plenty long enough for that to happen.

[Calling All Hogs]

Did Ole Miss get a good ROI with the recruits they paid?  Was it really worth it?  Best recruits you could buy and STILL can't make it to the SEC title game.  Best recruits you could buy and you lost to Arkansas AGAIN.

Even worse is we scored on them in the second half this year. That is the ultimate humiliation in college football.

[Pork Twain]

Your data says we should have on average the 16 best program in the NCAA.  That would be more like buying a $40 steak.  It should always be delicious.

And the right head coach is the answer.  If a coach underperforms once they have their players and system inplace then it's time to move on.  Four years is plenty long enough for that to happen.

The bulk of my data is focused on where we are in the SEC, you are picking what you want to see.  9th in the SEC is 9th in the SEC.

[wachhog]

..."I  DIDNT WANT TO GET FIRED either, so I wanted to make sure we talked to as many (sitting head ) coaches as we could...Just because you've been successful in one environment doesn't mean you'll come here and be successful .."
-Terry Don Phillips to ESPN on hiring Dabo Swinney.
I guess Terry Don thought a BIG part of his job as AD was hiring coaches who could win at Clemson. How novel.

[rustr]

The bulk of my data is focused on where we are in the SEC, you are picking what you want to see.  9th in the SEC is 9th in the SEC.

Honestly, you can't make that statement. There are too many variables to make it that simple. You are the one picking and choosing what you want to see. If your statement were true and it were that simple to correlate with us being 9th in the SEC then he is correct and we should on average be the 16th best program.

[Pork Twain]

Honestly, you can't make that statement. There are too many variables to make it that simple. You are the one picking and choosing what you want to see. If your statement were true and it were that simple to correlate with us being 9th in the SEC then he is correct and we should on average be the 16th best program.

First off I am not about poor lil ole Arkysaw.  I think we can and will do better, I just do not expect that based off the data that is available.  I believe we are on average, the 4/5 team in the west and 8-10 best team in the SEC.  I think we will have some really good years and some really bad years with a lot of average sprinkled in there.

You speak of too many variables, yet you are choosing to only look at one.  I am not picking and choosing anything and I take the presented variables into account.  You guys just want to look at revenue and nothing else and as we see, if you only counted revenue, aTm would be killing everyone.  Revenue does not and never has directly correlated to wins.  I include many variables that for some reason you are choosing to omit.  In a vacuum things would be much better for us but for some reason you are failing to take into account that we are usually playing many of the SEC teams that are 1-8th in revenue without looking at where we finish in recruiting, coaches salaries and stadium capacity and recruiting when attempting to correlate bang to buck.  If we never had to play another SEC team, we would likely finish about #16 or better every single year. 

When I am looking at bang for the buck, I take as much into consideration as I can.  I say based on the fact that our university has T revenue, pays out U to our HC, pays out V to our assistants, finishes W in recruiting on average, has X population and Y population density (which affect school sizes and in-state recruiting depth), produces Z 3/4/5* recruits and has to play all of the teams that finish ahead of it in every one of these categories, what is the real expected outcome H.  It would roughly look like this, get the average of T, U, V. W. X. Y and then T+U+V+W+X+Y+Z=the average of H.  If those are close, you are close. T=9, U=8, V=10, W=9, X=10, Y=10, Z=9 (9+8+10+9+10+10+9)=9.28 and H=9  Based on our conf standings in various categories, we should realistically be expected to finish 9.28 in the conf and we have averaged 7th since 2004.  Once you take that number and attempt to convert it to the national level you lose important information when you fail to factor in that our national finish will be the result of how we were able to finish in our own conference and that number is not 16, because 1-8 in our own conf have lowered our national standing with every loss they hand us.

Do a little trend analysis and tell me if there are any numbers here that you continue to see pop out and I will even help out.

Revenue
16th Nationally
9th in the SEC

Stadium capacity
16th Nationally
9th in the SEC

Head Coaching Salaries
17th Nationally
8th in the SEC

Assistant Coaching Salaries
17th Nationally
10th in the SEC

Recruiting rankings (Avg 2004-2016)
26th Nationally
9th in the SEC

In-State 3/4/5* Players Produced (Avg 2011-2015)
22nd Nationally
9th in the SEC

State Population (out of 11 SEC States)
32nd Nationally
10th in the SEC

State Population Density (out of 11 SEC States)
35th Nationally
10th in the SEC

Annual Finish (Avg 2000-2016)
7th in the SEC

[Inhogswetrust]

I NEVER thought of athletics as a ROI on MY investment. The ROI is for the school and what they get in return. Last time I checked they get a lot of publicity and also in our case the athletic department gives back in dollars to the school. THAT is what I like. Those schools where their athletic department constantly runs a deficit are the ones' that aren't getting a good ROI.

[Pork Twain]

I NEVER thought of athletics as a ROI on MY investment. The ROI is for the school and what they get in return. Last time I checked they get a lot of publicity and also in our case the athletic department gives back in dollars to,the school. THAT is what I like. Those schools where their athletic department constantly runs a deficit are the ones' that aren't getting a good ROI.

Well said and much easier said than what I was trying to say.