The Most Profitable College Football Teams

There's Big Pharma, Big Agra, Big Oil -- and then there's Big College Football.

Forget aluminum bleachers, homemade jerseys and dinky marching bands. According to 2010 Department of Education data (PDF), the old pigskin toss-n-kick brings in the serious bucks at some universities. At the University of Texas, total football revenue in 2009-2010 was upwards of $90 million. Click through below to see which schools saw the most revenue from the storied sport -- and which ones accrued the handsomest profits.

What do you think? Is this a crazy amount of money for a college sport, or is it totally justified? Leave your thoughts in the comments section.

1 of 12

University of Texas

1 of 13

First Slide

Previous Slide

@

Total Revenue: $93,942,815 Total Profit: $68,830,484

Chelsea Clinton Around Town

Schools Investigating Or Reviewing Policies On Sexual Assault

10 College Profs And Faculty Behaving Badly

Politicians Giving Commencement Speeches In 2013

President Obama's Morehouse Commencement Address

The Best Lines From Commencement Speeches In 2012

Total Revenue: $93,942,815
Total Profit: $68,830,484

comments(372)

Total comments: 372 | Post a Comment

1 of 13

Rate This Slide

Rank #2  |  Average: 4

Wasteful Worth it

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10

Current Top 5 Slides

loading...

Choose your Top 5 Slides

UserName

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Top User Slides

← Prev|Next →

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Users who voted on this slide

← Prev|Next →

loading...

Comments

[AbeMartin]

08:17 AM on 02/03/2011

Professional (and I include NCAA Div IA teams) league play is a zero sum game.  The victories are equal to the number of losses.  Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the economics of sport.  For the number of football programs that make a profit for their schools, their are many, many more, where these programs are run at a significant loss.  Stadiums do not sell out.  Teams (especially those in Division IAA, Division II, or Division III, may have only on opportunity to cash in by playing on ESPN or one of the networks.  These can easily bring several hundreds of thousands into the programs.  

Most colleges and universities are facing unprecedented financial challenges.  Some have sought to bring expenditures and income into closer alignment by cutting athletic budgets.  But football and men's basketball tend to be considered sacrosanct; the athletes in the small sports programs, such as volleyball, women's basketball, soccer, equestrian teams, field hockey, track and field and softball are the one's who pay the price.  

I hope that the NCAA, never an objective organization can find a way to spread the wealth, especially from the televised events, in the same way that the NFL does.

[HumanHotSauce]

03:56 AM on 01/21/2011

I wonder how much is based on apparel royalties. It's all about the U! At least for us in Miami it is. :)

[wendelswerk]

04:59 PM on 01/17/2011

And what do the African American athletes that keep the sport interesting, competitive and earning get? If they are lucky a scholarship, if unlucky a one way ticket home when it doesn't work out. This is a fraud and a sham. When will Black athletes and their mothers wake up?

[Randian Roark]

03:50 PM on 01/31/2011

Why can't they get a degree and fall back on it, like everyone else does?

[AbeMartin]

08:31 AM on 02/03/2011

Your observation is correct but this is not exclusively a problem confronting only Blacks.  Unfortunately, athletes are more likely to receive a partial scholarship, because the number of scholarships that may be offered is limited by the NCAA.  So, many schools divide the available scholarship pool--awarding half, or quarter scholarships, and maybe some assistance in purchasing the overpriced textbooks schools require.

There is also a much greater emphasis on academics being required by the NCAA (I am not a fan of the NCAA but they are getting this one right) because only 1 out 1000 collegiate athletes will ever earn money in the sport in which they compete.  Many, many programs, such as UNLV during the glory years of the early 1990's had zero percent of their varsity basketball teams graduate in most years.

Athletic programs are required by the NCAA to make certain that their athletes--not just targeted minorities--reach certain benchmarks in the number of credit hours passed within one year, two years, etc., to assure the possibility of graduation within five or six years.  And increasing numbers of schools are actively inviting those who failed to graduate to return to school--often at reduced tuition or through distance education--to complete required courses.

Those sports programs which do not reach the marks or have a cumulative GPA, face the loss of scholarships or other sanctions.  So, now in addition to the coaches, trainers, managers, etc., programs are hiring Associate Athletic Directors for Academics, tutors, and counselors.

[DanSc]

12:38 PM on 01/09/2011

Did the Auburn numbers reflect money paid by the school to players and their families?

[lcr999]

10:11 PM on 01/07/2011

Compared to the amount of money the University of Phoenix spends on TV adds, a big time football program is a bargain.

[infamousboone]

05:21 PM on 01/06/2011

how did mack brown's team make the list of the most profitable programs and he also make the list for the most OVER-valued coaches. just goes to show you can tell any story you want through "statistics"

[Reyeshawk13]

12:49 PM on 01/11/2011

Simple, the UT football program prints money, even if they aren't winning. Mack Brown is one of the highest (if not the highest) paid college football coaches in the country and he only won 4 games this year. UT spent a lot of money to get each of those wins, a whole lot of money.

[argved]

06:33 PM on 01/12/2011

Check out his won/loss record at Texas, one bad year does not a bad coach make. Those two Rose Bowl wins may have contributed to his being as you phrase it on the list for "the most OVER-value­d coaches."

[A Jay]

09:03 AM on 01/04/2011

HOOK EM!!! I love my alma-mater!

[dizzypdx]

12:49 AM on 01/05/2011

Gig'em

We are the ones that got to a bowl...

[A Jay]

09:35 AM on 01/10/2011

...AND lost. So sorry for you...forever a hater.

[Son of Sensi]

12:25 AM on 01/03/2011

7 of the 12 teams are in the SEC where football is a religion unto itself, so no surprise there. I'm going to take a wild guess that all 12 teams are in the top 20 for stadium capacity. that's really all that separates the elite money making programs; can you fill the seats, and how many seats do you have?

[Forester]

08:00 PM on 01/02/2011

How about an analysis of variance of net football profits and:

1) Nobel Prizes
2)graduation rates
3)nfl contracts

[auburnbob]

02:56 PM on 01/05/2011

and what university did you attend?

[Roses4Me]

11:50 PM on 01/05/2011

The University of Nebraska leads the nation in academic All-Americans.

Go Big Red!

[cliffhammond]

05:19 AM on 01/02/2011

Many folks don't realize that a college football program will pay for virtually every other sport.

[Vetinari]

03:56 AM on 01/09/2011

No, a very succesful football program will pay for other sports. A medium-succesful or a underperforming football program is a huge money pit.

[SonnyBono]

04:28 AM on 01/02/2011

There is an old saying that "figures don't lie but liars can figure." If this information is correct then the ADs and coaches of these schools are the smartest people on the planet - turning a nearly 50% profit by running out unpaid labor. I suspect that a lot of costs were missed in the analysis such as the cost of the football stadiums - most, if not all of the schools mentioned have single purpose on campus stadiums that require constant maintainance and crews as well as capital improvements to keep up with the other schools. I would be willing to bet that those costs are buried in the college's main budget. If stadiums were a positive part of the money making equation then all the NFL teams would build their own and most don't. The cost of health care for football players - general campus health care fund? The associated costs of moving the band and cheerleaders when the team travels - music department? I have read reports that of the major colleges - no more than a handful break even or turn a profit on football. If college football was the golden goose that this article suggests then the University of Chicago would still be fielding a team since they seen to be pretty smart group of people but they found out that big time football is a big time expense and in the end detracts from the primary purpose of the school - education.

[Son of Sensi]

12:22 AM on 01/03/2011

you're correct about 85% of football programs, but there also exists a minority of elite programs, with very generous donors, and 90,000+ capacity stadiums, and yes, those programs make an absurd amount of money for the schools. You want to talk about the cost of stadium maintenance? since money donated to the school's general fund, by people that only donate because their alma mater keeps fielding a winning team, is not counted as a net gain for the football program, why don't we just call it a wash. try not to forget, that while the point of college ought to be getting an education, that is secondary to many behind get drunk/have a good time. with that in mind, for profit schools may have a legitimate economic reason for pumping their athletics programs if they think it will increase the total number of applications received.

I honestly don't disagree with you in principle, but you can't look at the issue in a bubble.

The math on which programs make money is easy though, just a few critical factors, in order of importance;
1) How big is your stadium
2) Fan/Booster Loyalty
3) Winning %

If you have a big stadium, with fans that keep showing up, boosters that keep writing checks, and you keep winning, then you get lots and lots of bowl game money. that and lot's of shared TV revenue

[SonnyBono]

06:55 AM on 01/03/2011

I am not looking at this issue in a bubble as you suggested - I just doubt that schools are making a 50% profit on their football programs - IBM couldn't make that margin at the height of their monopoly power nor does MicroSoft - and they claim the AD at Alabama does??? My main point was that only a few (a mere handful) turn a profit at all while the vast majority of D1 schools lose money or struggle to break even and nobody in college football is making a 50% margin - not in this world.

[Reyeshawk13]

12:52 PM on 01/11/2011

Chicago didn't drop big time football because it was losing money. They dropped it because of scandals (recruiting and academic) and it had become an embarrassment to the university. D1 schools don't get embarrassed anymore.

[jason9045]

11:06 PM on 01/01/2011

Surprised to see Alabama ranked so far down, their revenues were second-highest but I guess paying their coaching staff and expanding the stadium this past offseason really ate into profits.

[Son of Sensi]

12:25 AM on 01/03/2011

i'd be interested how their avg ticket price compares to the other schools as well.

[Spike5]

05:08 PM on 01/01/2011

I guess that's how they can afford to pay the coaches so much. But like any big business, you are supposed to deliver the goods. (We'll leave Wall Street and banking out of it for the moment.) So that's why Michigan will be paying off Rich Rodriguez by Monday.

[H P]

01:56 PM on 01/01/2011

If you notice.. almost all of those are SEC teams.. Why? oh the SEC football contract with ESPN
15 year $2 BILLION: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=3553033

THAT's why

[mpflinn]

05:22 PM on 01/01/2011

And I'm in California and can't afford above basic cable and can't even watch the Rose Bowl game. There really were some good old days before money took over everything when for free we could channel flip good games all day (cotton, sugar, rose, orange) and they were actually competitive teams. New Year's Day football; afternoon; and no games left -- infomercials anyone?

[thatbrothasmoove6]

11:19 AM on 01/01/2011

This list has NO basis in reality. OHIO STATE spends more and makes more than any other football program in the country. That's been true for at least a generation. GO BUCKS.

[Exfl]

04:57 PM on 01/01/2011

Big 10 (henceforth known as the Medium 12) is certainly the most overrated conference. Maybe Ohio State spends more of what it takes in and is not as "Profitable" (This talked about profits, not gross revenues.)

[sja11]

06:30 PM on 01/01/2011

has anyone told you how witty you are? Medium 12! what a thigh slapper that one is

[thatbrothasmoove6]

11:09 PM on 01/01/2011

Oh. And O. State is the most profitable too.

[Son of Sensi]

12:37 AM on 01/03/2011

You're right that OSU should be on the list, but it should be #3 behind Texas and Georgia. OSU has the 2nd highest revenue, it spends the more money than any other program, roughly $10 million more than TX. That all being said, there's no reason they shouldn't be on the list, it's absurd.