Basketball $$$ By School

[MeanGreen61]

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/18/news/companies/basketball_profits/index.htm?iid=EAL

[MDH]

Meaningless numbers, look @ Duke and look @ Texas Southern - nuff said.

[TheTastyGreek]

Meaningless numbers, look @ Duke and look @ Texas Southern - nuff said.

Duke spent $13 million on the sport and won a national championship. Texas Southern spent under $700k and didn't even win the SWAC. I don't see the point.

Profit may not be of any relevance, but expenditures is a VERY meaningful figure.

[CMJ]

A lot of Duke's expenditure was paying for a new practice facility apparently. They don't usually drop 13M a year.

[KRAM1]

Folks, the amount of money spent on a program has not proved to be direct correlation for success in every endeavor. Just look at public education in this country...we keep pouring $$$$$ after $$$$ into it, and it still seems stuck in neutral. Money isn't the answer to all situations. Does it help? Absolutely, and I am not trying to indicate otherwise. I am just trying to point out that money is only one factor that comes into play with successful programs.

Now, about those Mean Green Club memberships.....

[TheTastyGreek]

Folks, the amount of money spent on a program has not proved to be direct correlation for success in every endeavor. Just look at public education in this country...we keep pouring $$$$$ after $$$$ into it, and it still seems stuck in neutral. Money isn't the answer to all situations. Does it help? Absolutely, and I am not trying to indicate otherwise. I am just trying to point out that money is only one factor that comes into play with successful programs.

Now, about those Mean Green Club memberships.....

There's a minimal threshold that seems to be critical for success, at least in basketball.

30 at large bids have gone to 23 non-BCS teams in the past 5 NCAA tournaments. Before that, you have realignment issues like Cincinnati being a C-USA team that make this year's numbers irrelevant to the situation at the time.

Of those 30 at-larges, only six have gone to programs that spend less than $2 million on basketball. Three of those six went to Butler, and another went to Saint Mary's, which is just $32,017 below the $2 million mark. The other two went to South Alabama and Northern Iowa, both of which spend over $1.5 million. So out of 23 at-large teams from the past half decade, only 4 spent even a dollar less than $2 million and none of them were below $1.5 million.

11 of them went to "mid majors" that spend between just under $3 million to as much as $4.6 million on basketball. Half of the 30 went to teams that spend more than double what we do on basketball.

[GrandGreen]

There's a minimal threshold that seems to be critical for success, at least in basketball.

30 at large bids have gone to 23 non-BCS teams in the past 5 NCAA tournaments. Before that, you have realignment issues like Cincinnati being a C-USA team that make this year's numbers irrelevant to the situation at the time.

Of those 30 at-larges, only six have gone to programs that spend less than $2 million on basketball. Three of those six went to Butler, and another went to Saint Mary's, which is just $32,017 below the $2 million mark. The other two went to South Alabama and Northern Iowa, both of which spend over $1.5 million. So out of 23 at-large teams from the past half decade, only 4 spent even a dollar less than $2 million and none of them were below $1.5 million.

11 of them went to "mid majors" that spend between just under $3 million to as much as $4.6 million on basketball. Half of the 30 went to teams that spend more than double what we do on basketball.

Yes, but you could make a even stronger correlation using the conference status. The stronger the conference, the more money and increased likelihood of success. It is very difficult to really isolate and therefore evaluate factors necessary for winning. In the long haul though money is critical because it influences coaching, recruiting and ultimately conference affiliation.