such a significant difference outside the top 9 which we happen to fall in. suprised to see iowa 11th however.
Kind of surprised to see USuCk all the way down at 24. I would think with that many celbs wanting to love a local team they would be backing the rubbers
His methodology is different than Forbes. They consider the amount of revenue generated for the universities themselves, the athletic departments, conference members/bowl game payouts, and local economy when visiting team are in town. Their top 5 are Texas, Notre Dame, Tennessee, LSU, and Michigan. http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissm...le-teams-2015-texas-notre-dame-and-tennessee/ The SEC homer deal that was cut with ESPN generated a ridiculous amount of revenue for all SEC teams which is why so many are near the top but Tennessee doesn't spend what say, Alabama does on recruiting and coach salaries, etc. Some schools maintain singular control of merchandising agreements and so revenue generated through the sale of shirts, hats, etc is not reported. USC is a school that does so we never appear on a list of most valuable/profitable. Stanford has the 2nd largest endowment in the country so money the football program generates is small potatoes. They won't be high on the list either. Frankly, the Pac 12 conference commissioner is the worst in the country and the TV deal he cut is horrible. Ridiculous that kal or wazzu should get the same share as a furd, Oregon, or USC.
As you can see from what I posted above, USC still maintains all merchandising ownership and decision-making. As such, there are no figures available for how much revenue is generated for this category. Were the pencil-pusher to include it, the ranking would change. BTW, what's a celb?
celeb = celebrity (I know/assume you were picking at the sp) That's what happens when you feed in to the tiger forum addiction in the middle of a work day and you don't pay attention to important things like spelling in posting. Also your telling me that USuCk doesn't pull in as much revenue via games as a michigan, ohio state, texas, gump, ect? I find that hard to believe. I mean their stadium isn't small, they have a pretty loyal following, and the area isn't hurting financially. I just don't see the disparity.
And so would USC's eligibility status, I'm guessing. But you knew what "USuCk was? No, she's telling you they're wealthy, very wealthy. In the words of Donald Trump, "I'm rich, very rich." What do our fans leave for in the 3rd?