Maybe if it were a neoplacebo-worthy, fish-slapping, salamander stomping, case of whoopass beat down, but otherwise...

Maybe if it were a neoplacebo-worthy, fish-slapping, salamander stomping, case of whoopass beat down, but otherwise...
O Really wrote: ↑Sat Nov 12, 2022 1:12 pmThat's a good program. Period.
Further, though, if a person can't afford the application fee, what realistic chance do they have to afford to attend? But the cost of applications would add up if you're applying to several schools (first choice, back-up, etc.) Back in the Dark Ages, I applied (in preference order) to UNC (legacy and some personal familiarity), University of Miami, University of Pennsylvania (really just to see if I could get accepted), and University of Maryland. (sorry, Vrede, but I really didn't want to go "off" to college in my back yard if I didn't have to)
That makes a persuasive case that it's society's spending choices that are fucked up rather than Auburn’s.billy.pilgrim wrote: ↑Sun Nov 13, 2022 11:03 pmhttps://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/st ... 484037002/
Auburn reported a record revenue of more than $152.4 million during the 2018-19 fiscal year. That total ranked 13th nationally, according to the USA Today database.
Of that $152.4 million, more than $95.1 million came directly from football. That total includes ticket sales ($29 million); donations from individuals, corporations, clubs or foundations ($29 million); media rights ($18.9 million); bowl game revenue ($7.2 million); a guarantee for the nonconference game in Atlanta ($4.2 million); and concessions and parking ($2 million), among other revenue streams.
Add it all up, and it equals 62.4% of the department’s total earnings. The program’s total expenses came out to a little more than $47.8 million, which mean football operated at a profit of more than $47.3 million.
That excess is how Auburn funds the rest of its athletics department. Football is one of only two college sports considered a revenue-generator — the men’s basketball program brought in a revenue of $15.5 million, which was a profit of $5 million over its $10.5 million expenditure.
The rest of Auburn’s athletic programs (baseball, women’s basketball, equestrian, golf, gymnastics, soccer, softball, swimming and diving, tennis, track and field/cross country and volleyball) brought in $41.7 million in revenue but cost $80.8 million to run — a net loss of $39.1 million. That’s why the department’s surplus was only $13.2 million.
I'm not sure I follow your line here. Isn't it more accurate that the most popular big money sport has to share with the sports that wouldn't be able to survive on only their own funds.Vrede too wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 3:20 pmThat makes a persuasive case that it's society's spending choices that are fucked up rather than Auburn’s.billy.pilgrim wrote: ↑Sun Nov 13, 2022 11:03 pmhttps://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/st ... 484037002/
Auburn reported a record revenue of more than $152.4 million during the 2018-19 fiscal year. That total ranked 13th nationally, according to the USA Today database.
Of that $152.4 million, more than $95.1 million came directly from football. That total includes ticket sales ($29 million); donations from individuals, corporations, clubs or foundations ($29 million); media rights ($18.9 million); bowl game revenue ($7.2 million); a guarantee for the nonconference game in Atlanta ($4.2 million); and concessions and parking ($2 million), among other revenue streams.
Add it all up, and it equals 62.4% of the department’s total earnings. The program’s total expenses came out to a little more than $47.8 million, which mean football operated at a profit of more than $47.3 million.
That excess is how Auburn funds the rest of its athletics department. Football is one of only two college sports considered a revenue-generator — the men’s basketball program brought in a revenue of $15.5 million, which was a profit of $5 million over its $10.5 million expenditure.
The rest of Auburn’s athletic programs (baseball, women’s basketball, equestrian, golf, gymnastics, soccer, softball, swimming and diving, tennis, track and field/cross country and volleyball) brought in $41.7 million in revenue but cost $80.8 million to run — a net loss of $39.1 million. That’s why the department’s surplus was only $13.2 million.
Look at all 'dem WsVrede too wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 3:46 pmFCS Coaches Poll
Top 10 are unchanged after all either won or had a bye.![]()
Montana State 9-1 remains #3.![]()
Jackson State 10-0 remains #5. GoDeionGo!
Montana 7-3 moved up 2 to #12 after crushing unranked Eastern Washington 63-7 and other ranked teams lost.![]()
Sat, Nov 19 2:00 PM Montana @Montana State in the regular season finale. ESPN+. Go Griz!
Tickets as low as $376, and those are in the corners of the endzone.![]()
I don't think the Big Sky Conference has a championship game. Montana wouldn't qualify even if it wins. Currently, it looks like Sacramento 10-0, 7-0 may hold some tiebreaker over Montana State 9-1, 7-0, but I don't know what it is. Maybe conference point differential?
https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... w/fcs-i-aa
Anyhow, a Montana win might get it into the playoffs, a loss might keep it out. I think Montana State is in the playoffs win or lose.
![]()
Easy tiger. I'm saying that it's fucked up that society's spends so much on football relative to other sports and education, NOT that Auburn is fucked up for spending SOME of the income on its cash cow that supports other sports, football.billy.pilgrim wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 6:24 pmI'm not sure I follow your line here. Isn't it more accurate that the most popular big money sport has to share with the sports that wouldn't be able to survive on only their own funds.Vrede too wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 3:20 pmThat makes a persuasive case that it's society's spending choices that are fucked up rather than Auburn’s.billy.pilgrim wrote: ↑Sun Nov 13, 2022 11:03 pmhttps://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/st ... 484037002/
...
These other sports also provide competition, excitement and team spirit, but with football and basketball it's more in your face happening now.
I think it’s great that football can fund itself, plus swimming, gymnastics, golf, etc without having to dip into educational funds.
GO SPORTS
#6 ranking 9-1!billy.pilgrim wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 6:36 pmLook at all 'dem Ws
https://goargos.com/sports/football/schedule/2022
I understood you, but disagree with your point about society and about where football money is spent.Vrede too wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 6:44 pmEasy tiger. I'm saying that it's fucked up that society's spends so much on football relative to other sports and education, NOT that Auburn is fucked up for spending SOME of the income on its cash cow that supports other sports, football.billy.pilgrim wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 6:24 pmI'm not sure I follow your line here. Isn't it more accurate that the most popular big money sport has to share with the sports that wouldn't be able to survive on only their own funds.Vrede too wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 3:20 pmThat makes a persuasive case that it's society's spending choices that are fucked up rather than Auburn’s.billy.pilgrim wrote: ↑Sun Nov 13, 2022 11:03 pmhttps://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/st ... 484037002/
...
These other sports also provide competition, excitement and team spirit, but with football and basketball it's more in your face happening now.
I think it’s great that football can fund itself, plus swimming, gymnastics, golf, etc without having to dip into educational funds.
GO SPORTS
$95.1 million for one moderately successful school seems excessive to me, especially considering what we don't yet know about CTE. It's this ridiculous largesse that makes a carousel of poor coaches costing tens of millions in buyouts possible.billy.pilgrim wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 7:12 pmI understood you, but disagree with your point about society and about where football money is spent.
Would higher education be better off without sports?
I can't help but believe that sports participation and spirit help promote education in general.
Culturally we are the most excited about the most adrenaline pumping sports. It's natural for those sports to generate the most money, but it's society that steps in and commands that these big money sports share with all other sports.
Is the money coming from educational funds, or is it enhancing educational funds?Vrede too wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 7:19 pm$95.1 million for one moderately successful school seems excessive to me, especially considering what we don't yet know about CTE. It's this ridiculous largesse that makes a carousel of poor coaches costing tens of millions in buyouts possible.billy.pilgrim wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 7:12 pmI understood you, but disagree with your point about society and about where football money is spent.
Would higher education be better off without sports?
I can't help but believe that sports participation and spirit help promote education in general.
Culturally we are the most excited about the most adrenaline pumping sports. It's natural for those sports to generate the most money, but it's society that steps in and commands that these big money sports share with all other sports.
I think that it's a reasonable guess that some of the "donations from individuals, corporations, clubs or foundations ($29 million)" would go to other school activities given the desire of folks to support their school one way or the other. Then, I'd guess that some of the "media rights ($18.9 million)" would be spent on other college sports. Beyond that, as O Really suggests money not spent on college football will go to other things, whatever they are.billy.pilgrim wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 7:40 pmIs the money coming from educational funds, or is it enhancing educational funds?
I agree, you know that, it's more our new class of trillionairs who will soon fully own our economy and our government who are responsible for "the the hungry kids, homeless people and unaffordable healthcare, etc."O Really wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 7:58 pmI understand why football earns all the revenue, and it's good to be able to fund other sports. And sports overall are good for students and the community as a whole. But in my case when I see a huge dollar number for truly first-world luxury I can't help but think of the the hungry kids, homeless people and unaffordable healthcare, etc. and wonder how much of that could be helped if enough money was thrown at it. But yeah, I know - even if college sports did get dropped they're not going to use the money to feed any kids.
Sports are the modern opiate of the masses.billy.pilgrim wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 12:27 pmI agree, you know that, it's more our new class of trillionairs who will soon fully own our economy and our government who are responsible for "the the hungry kids, homeless people and unaffordable healthcare, etc."
The college sport money is only a symptom of the problem.
More of a shiny object to divert more focused attention on the real problem.
Go football!
"-500" was the money line, they just posted it in the wrong spot. Tulsa 48-42 in a shootoutVrede too wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:57 am9:00 PM EST
GO South Florida 1-9 > Tulsa 3-7 (-500), TV: ESPN2
Yes, Yahoo really favors Tulsa by 500. VegasInsider favors Tulsa by 13.5.