College Football Victories Come at a Cost
By Zach Bigalke
So I’ve been tinkering around with a lot of college statistics lately… you’d think the clock had turned back and I was a high-school senior again or something, the way I’ve been looking at everything from win percentages to academic standards to the revenue that major schools spend on their sports teams.
Now the analysis that follows is by no means conclusive, but at least I think my methodology is sound…
Basically the goal in this week’s statistical analysis was to look at five of the six major conferences in both college football and men’s college basketball (the two sports that both generate the most revenue and swallow that revenue) to determine their relative strength both on and off the field. (I declined to analyze the Big East due to the fact that only half of its members compete in both sports at the top division.) Through my analysis I’ve created two different statistics:
- COST/WIN — This is sort of a simplification in description. Rather the formula works more like this:
Revenue ÷ [(wins in football + men's basketball) × win % in both sports] …
The basic goal is to assess how well that revenue is producing results in the two sports that both produce the most revenue and also use the greatest portion of the expenses, football and men’s basketball. How are the blue-chip athletic departments handling their finances. Are they getting outplayed by the little guys who were expected to have no chance due to the disparity in the playing field? - SUCCESS RATE – Success rate weights the figure produced by the cost/win analysis against the graduation success rate the NCAA uses to assess what percentage of kids a school graduated over a rolling six-year window. Using a formula that divides the cost/win from the academic success rate divided by ratio of scholarships granted in each sport per year (85 for football, 13 for basketball).
The numbers came from two sources. First, the NCAA’s report on graduation success rate by sport was the source for graduation rates for each school in football and men’s basketball. School athletic expense data came from USA Today’s report on college finances. All data is for the 2009-10 fiscal year and the seasons which fell during that year (2009 football season, 2009-10 basketball season)…
So how do the top five conferences stack up against one another?
GSR
EXPENSES
COST/WIN
SUCCESS
BIG TEN (10/11 public schools)
67%
81.96
6.42795
9.42364
SEC (11/12 public schools)
62%
81.64
5.44219
9.14866
PAC-10 (8/10 public schools)
59%
59.54
4.57354
8.04735
BIG XII (11/12 public schools)
60%
70.68
4.37520
7.70019
ACC (8/12 public schools)
64%
60.88
3.77809
5.88179
So what does this data mean? The Big Ten spends slightly more than the SEC on its programs, and gets slightly less value for it in terms of wins. But at the same time their success rate is higher in large part because they graduate five percent more of their athletes (which would translate to 29 more kids getting degrees from Big Ten schools than their SEC counterparts over that six-year window.
The Pac-10 graduates fewer football and men’s basketball athletes than any other major conference, but they also spend on average less than any other conference on their programs. Because of this even the mediocre schools from each sport fail to drag it down far enough (especially with Stanford and USC, both top schools, not included in the study due to lack of private-school data).
Even without its four top-shelf private schools — Duke, Boston College, Wake Forest and Miami — included in the data, the ACC graduates more players than all but the Big Ten. Its public-institution member schools spend on average just $1.34 million more than their Pac-10 counterparts on athletic finances. Yet their success rate in general is abysmal when compared to the other conferences.
What does this tell us? Who knows… but it can be fun to think about the proposal that Mike Leach made back when he was still the coach at Texas Tech. When his Red Raiders were tied with Oklahoma and Texas atop the Big XII South standings, and they needed to break the tie to see who would play in the championship game against the top North team, Leach proposed using academic success as a tiebreaker. It would certainly be a novel way to include the student aspect of the student-athlete in the equation…
But let’s take it further. How much is what a school spends on sports indicative of its success on and off the field? What follow are the grades for every one of the public universities from the five conferences included in the study. Consider this a new sort of way of looking at team success in college sports…
FOOTBALL
BASKETBALL
(in millions)
GSR
W
L
%
GSR
W
L
%
EXPENSESCOST/WINSUCCESSStanford
86%
8
5
0.615
80%
14
18
0.438
0.00000
0.00000
Washington
82%
5
7
0.417
44%
26
10
0.722
61.64
3.07879
4.00055
Cal
65%
8
5
0.615
30%
24
11
0.686
69.35
3.25078
5.38591
Arizona St.
63%
4
8
0.333
60%
22
11
0.667
57.91
3.85496
6.15788
USC
61%
9
4
0.692
42%
16
14
0.533
0.00000
0.00000
Washington St.
60%
1
11
0.083
44%
16
15
0.516
38.05
5.66142
9.78172
Oregon St.
56%
8
5
0.615
64%
14
18
0.438
52.67
4.89700
8.58202
Oregon
54%
10
3
0.769
79%
16
16
0.500
77.86
5.18299
9.04278
UCLA
52%
7
6
0.538
70%
14
18
0.438
61.88
6.31429
11.60976
Arizona
48%
8
5
0.615
20%
16
15
0.516
56.92
4.34806
9.81819
PAC-10
60%
7
6
51%
18
15
59%
59.54
4.57354
8.04735
FOOTBALL
BASKETBALL
(in millions)
Northwestern
95%
8
5
0.615
90%
20
14
0.588
0.00000
0.00000
Penn St.
84%
11
2
0.846
86%
11
20
0.355
88.04
8.00364
9.49814
Iowa
79%
11
2
0.846
55%
10
22
0.313
74.44
7.59592
10.01884
Illinois
76%
3
9
0.250
100%
21
15
0.583
71.96
5.99667
7.57311
Michigan
72%
5
7
0.417
36%
15
17
0.469
89.13
9.80430
14.58442
Indiana
69%
4
8
0.333
62%
10
21
0.323
65.80
14.43571
21.20672
Wisconsin
65%
10
3
0.769
70%
24
9
0.727
92.26
3.67125
5.59102
Ohio St.
63%
11
2
0.846
64%
29
8
0.784
122.74
3.83563
6.07550
Purdue
60%
5
7
0.417
67%
29
6
0.829
58.37
2.37317
3.89501
Minnesota
56%
6
7
0.462
42%
21
14
0.600
78.71
5.18255
9.57199
Michigan St.
55%
6
7
0.462
50%
28
9
0.757
78.16
3.38062
6.22162
BIG TEN
68%
7
5
63%
20
14
67%
81.96
6.42795
9.42364
FOOTBALL
BASKETBALL
(in millions)
Vanderbilt
89%
2
10
0.167
93%
24
9
0.727
0.00000
0.00000
Georgia
68%
8
5
0.615
36%
14
17
0.452
77.25
7.02273
11.01516
Florida
67%
13
1
0.929
44%
21
13
0.618
105.82
4.39391
6.87096
Alabama
67%
14
0
1.000
75%
17
15
0.531
98.96
4.73690
6.95976
LSU
67%
9
4
0.692
50%
11
20
0.355
102.32
11.25520
17.38392
Mississippi St.
64%
5
7
0.417
43%
24
12
0.667
36.27
2.07011
3.38174
Auburn
63%
8
5
0.615
27%
15
17
0.469
90.91
7.73336
13.28198
Kentucky
63%
7
6
0.538
44%
35
3
0.921
79.00
2.28401
3.77650
Mississippi
61%
9
4
0.692
64%
24
11
0.686
45.74
2.01609
3.28364
South Carolina
57%
7
6
0.538
53%
15
16
0.484
78.30
7.11818
12.60538
Arkansas
55%
8
5
0.615
22%
14
18
0.438
71.80
6.67562
13.18707
Tennessee
53%
7
6
0.538
40%
28
9
0.757
111.67
4.55796
8.88915
SEC
65%
8
5
49%
20
13
62%
81.64
5.44219
9.14866
FOOTBALL
BASKETBALL
(in millions)
Missouri
71%
8
5
0.615
44%
23
11
0.676
61.77
3.02101
4.48099
Texas Tech
69%
9
4
0.692
44%
19
16
0.543
59.34
3.63306
5.53115
Kansas St.
69%
6
6
0.500
40%
29
8
0.784
42.34
1.69360
2.59942
Nebraska
68%
10
4
0.714
82%
15
18
0.455
71.74
5.39485
7.72269
Baylor
64%
4
8
0.333
38%
28
8
0.778
0.00000
0.00000
Iowa St.
64%
7
6
0.538
35%
15
17
0.469
46.66
4.33822
7.21197
Colorado
59%
3
9
0.250
43%
15
16
0.484
48.59
6.44867
11.33782
Oklahoma St.
59%
9
4
0.692
92%
22
11
0.667
83.75
4.00884
6.32534
Texas A&M
57%
6
7
0.462
64%
24
10
0.706
75.94
3.96576
6.84594
Kansas
56%
5
7
0.417
80%
33
3
0.917
69.24
2.30161
3.88892
Texas
49%
13
1
0.929
42%
24
10
0.706
130.44
4.57350
9.51397
Oklahoma
44%
8
5
0.615
55%
13
18
0.419
87.68
8.74812
19.24390
BIG XII
60%
7
6
56%
22
12
60%
70.68
4.37520
7.70019
FOOTBALL
BASKETBALL
(in millions)
Duke
95%
3
9
0.250
83%
35
5
0.875
0.00000
0.00000
Boston College
90%
7
6
0.538
88%
15
16
0.484
0.00000
0.00000
Wake Forest
81%
3
9
0.250
100%
20
11
0.645
0.00000
0.00000
Miami
81%
7
6
0.538
73%
20
13
0.606
0.00000
0.00000
Virginia Tech
79%
11
3
0.786
75%
25
9
0.735
55.74
2.06444
2.63089
North Carolina
75%
8
5
0.615
88%
20
17
0.541
72.69
4.63584
6.04219
Virginia
75%
4
8
0.333
36%
15
16
0.484
70.87
8.44158
12.08936
Florida St.
64%
10
4
0.714
73%
22
10
0.688
75.21
3.37857
5.18235
Maryland
64%
9
4
0.692
31%
24
9
0.727
54.66
2.30887
3.87249
Clemson
60%
6
7
0.462
71%
21
11
0.656
56.78
3.50494
5.70287
NC State
56%
9
4
0.692
60%
20
16
0.556
45.88
2.67315
4.72868
Georgia Tech
49%
6
7
0.462
36%
23
13
0.639
55.22
3.21734
6.80550
ACC
65%
7
6
59%
22
12
64%
60.88
3.77809
5.88179
Okay, so that’s a lot of numbers. But the same rules apply as the did in the conference analysis. The less a school is spending relative to their success rate, the better. In a way, you could argue that — while they falter when it comes to football for the most part — the ACC is the best in the country at graduating players and getting victories relative to the amount of money that they spend on sports. Only Virginia — who had a losing record in both football and basketball in the 2009-10 analysis year — was above a 10 success rating.
What are the failings in such a rating? Only that it lacks the depth to properly account for the value of a football win versus a basketball win… which perhaps will be fixed soon enough in a future edition of this column.
So I hope you’ve enjoyed this look, which if anything else is illuminating. The cost per win figures are definitely legit, while the success formula could still use some tweaking. Be sure to leave your thoughts and suggestions for future analysis!
Get more great analysis over at the Global Turnstile.
undefined
